I would like to take issue with a few statements made by Manuel Cachan in his April 6 editorial "But Out of Smokers' Lives."

I see a few errors in Cachan's reasoning, but more importantly, question his conclusion equating right to smoke to a woman's right to choose an abortion. I agree with Cachan that a person generally has the right to do whatever he wishes to his body, but I think Cachan grossly neglects the effect of smoking on others.

Cachan's first mistake is his comparison of the right to smoke with the increase of speed limits and allowing the consumption of alcoholic beverages. His point is that if we allow these other actions that, like smoking, lead to more deaths, then we likewise ought to ignore the second-hand effects of smoking and should therefore oppose curbs on its practice.

Contrary to Cachan claim, driving fast and consuming alcoholic beverages are not by themselves harmful to other people. Only when combined with illegal or negligent behavior do they pose a threat to others. Smoking, even when done in accord with all current laws, can still have deleterious effects on those who must silently suffer its second-hand effects. If I drink a six-pack in a crowded cafeteria, I can only hurt myself; second-hand smoke will hurt all those unlucky enough to be seated close to the smoker.

Cachan decries the invasion of his right to smoke for the good of an "abstract society." That society is not abstract at all. I and many like me are the tangible, identifiable people who suffer asthma and red eyes every time Cachan decides to exercise his God-given right to light up. This doesn't even include the many more tolerant non-smokers who will die later because of Cachan's and his fellow smokers' allegedly innocent puffs. Faced with a decidedly unabstract society that suffers because of his actions, I trust that Cachan will not assert that I must be forced to inhale his smoke. I hope he will recognize that his right to spew his smoke, just as his right to extend his fist, must end at the tip of my nose.

In his conclusion, Cachan tries to identify smoking with the right to have an abortion. Unfortunate as it may be, there is no "right" to an abortion in the United States, although it is under many conditions permissible. Though he did not intend it, Cachan's "right" to smoke does reside in this same legislative middle ground to which abortion currently belongs. And because smoking is not a right, its exercise ought to be subject to protect our "abstract society" from suffering the side-effects of Cachan's choice of what to put in his lungs.

Finally, though it is obvious that Cachan strongly values his ability to smoke, he makes the ever-so-Crimson mistake of overstating his point for effect. Equating curbs on smoking to restrictions on abortion is offensive to anyone who cares strongly either way about the issue of abortion. If Cachan is planning to draw further allusions to this point, I urge him to keep his words, like his smoke, to himself. Bob Jordan '94