I am even more disheartened that Montgomery's mayor is involved in such un-American behavior.

Bobby Bright is trying to stop the adult arcades in Montgomery for strictly personal reasons.

I keep hearing about how it hurts people, but no one has bothered to print how much revenue the arcades bring into the city.

Perhaps Bright should consider that fact before condemning the arcades. Aside from the revenue the arcades generate, which Montgomery will lose if Bright has his way, it should be every person's choice as to whether or not he or she chooses to use an arcade.

Let's keep our American rights intact and the revenue from the arcades in Montgomery, instead of Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi.

Since Nazi expert Joe Boyett, like a lot of liberals of late, compares everything and everyone he disagrees with to the Nazis or some other dictatorial form of government, I take no offense to his letter likening me to a fascist.

In the case of the ban on smoking, who's being dictatorial -- the people who advocate the freedom of restaurant owners to run a business in a manner of their choosing (smoking or not) or those like Boyett who insist on having everything their own way?

Boyett writes of the "people's benefit," while Federalist Papers warn of the tyranny of the majority.

So concerned with the overreaching nature of governments were the Founding Fathers that they crafted a document that specifically enumerated and limited government's powers -- a revolutionary idea at the time.

If individual liberty had not trumped majority/mob rule, how far would civil rights have gotten in the South in the 1960s?

With regard to "maximizing profits," Boyett put me on the wrong side of this issue. Mr. Park and Mr. Niessen (and others) talked of business owners maximizing profit by going smoke-free.

My position is, and always has been, profits will follow good business decisions.

Those business decisions should be left to business owners, not the city council.

It appears that the tactic was beginning to realize success as Saddam's cohorts had begun to "secretly" explore avenues for his possible asylum.

Sadly, recent stateside anti-war demonstrations, a frantic media, Hollywood left appeasement and liberal congressional panic appear to have strengthened Saddam's resolve to continue to pursue a war option with the hope of turning public opinion.

Will today's protesters unknowingly destine our troops to a bloody war?

Most people don't smoke so they may be pleased with the no-smoking ordinance. But that would be shortsighted indeed. If we are permitted to do only what no one objects to, freedom is a flimsy thing. It is the unpopular actions that need protection.

But what does freedom have to do with smoking, some will ask. Smoking is a health risk. Surely that is grounds for prohibition. That argument demonstrates how far we have drifted from our libertarian moorings.

We generally understand that the owner of private property sets the rules. Morally speaking, he retains the right to decide whether to serve Mexican or Chinese food. Likewise, it is his right to decide whether to permit or prohibit smoking. Customers have a right, too -- the right to avoid the property.

Why aren't non-smokers content to leave this issue to the voluntary action of all concerned? If enough people want smoke-free restaurants, entrepreneurs will oblige. The attempt to deny smokers their freedom brings to mind H.L. Mencken's definition of Puritanism: the haunting fear that somewhere someone may be happy.

I think our city council members deserve a pat on the back. Their job is to look out for our best interests. I have heard a lot of people complaining about the smoking ban, saying they are taking away our rights. Here is my side of that coin.

I have the right to make a fist and swing my arms, but when my hand strikes someone's nose, I have abused my rights and infringed on someone else's right to live safely and free from harm. At this point, there are consequences I must face.

Similarly, I have a right to smoke. I can smoke until I can no longer take a draw, but when the smoke from my death stick reaches someone's nose (or lungs), I have abused my right and infringed on someone else's right to live safely and free from harm. There should be consequences for this, too.

My wife and I are expecting a baby and I think we have the right to eat without endangering our unborn baby. I think it is inconsiderate for someone to light up a cigarette around me, especially when I am trying to eat. They make me cough. I think I have a right to eat my meals without gagging.