Q Is the 2009 deadline for a total smoking ban acceptable? I can't believe we are discussing a date that is suitable for the smoking ban. The only date that is the right date to ban smoking is now! Smoking has been proven to cause morbidity and mortality in not only those that smoke, but in those around them. We require no public discussion for banning marijuana, heroin and other illicit drugs, and the deaths from the use of those drugs are far fewer than those from the use of tobacco. So why the sudden consideration for those who smoke? Some may argue it's their right to smoke. But it is impossible for them to smoke without affecting others, therefore they have no rights in this matter. Ban smoking right now. Natalie Yuen, Mid-Levels The ages of smokers tend to be younger and younger. If the government doesn't do anything now, the future health of our young children will be affected. It is time for the government to ban smoking in bars and restaurants. As to your question, I want the government to carry out the ban as soon as possible. However, in considering the catering industry preparing for the change, the deadline proposed by the government is still acceptable. What makes me angry is that the catering industry argues against the ban by saying 100,000 people will lose their jobs. This is a scare tactic. I fully support the government on this matter. Gary Ko, Kwai Chung Q How should the government promote eco-friendly cars? The government could promote the use of such eco-friendly cars by allowing current car owners to switch to these new cars tax-free. It would not increase the number of cars, as it would in theory be a one-for-one switch, yet it would reduce the pollution of regular cars. S.L. Beh, Pokfulam On other matters ... Perhaps some of your readers who persist in walking their dogs off the leash in a public place could be reminded of the law: Cap 421 Rabies Ordinance, Section 7(1)(b): 'Any person who allows a Part II animal to wander in a public place ... without a leash or otherwise under control is liable to have their animal seized by an authorised officer.' What is a Part II animal? A dog! I am rather annoyed at the arrogance of some people who regard their dogs as so well-trained and docile that they are above the law, unlike most dog-owners such as myself. On a salutary note we are reminded of the French woman who underwent a face transplant - and what happened to her old face? Her pet dog ripped it off. Never become complacent about your pet dog, particularly in a public place with young children around. Name and address supplied With the Winter Olympics in Turin starting tomorrow, here is an open question to all television stations: which one of you will do the decent thing and show us the Winter Olympics? Four years ago, we got zero coverage. Surely this time round someone will have realised there are many sports on show that people in Hong Kong would like to see? Don Wong, Discovery Bay I must comment in response to Kwok Menyee of Tai Po (Talkback, January 18) regarding his two German shepherds as he has made a very emotional criticism of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department's handling of the case. However he himself must realise that he was in breach of Hong Kong laws and the bulk of any blame should lie directly at his door. While our government's general apathy towards animal welfare is well noted, the relevant department staff do their best under the constraints of manpower and money. The current microchip system was initiated to promote responsible dog ownership and presumably to keep track of the city's canines. That it by no means prevents owners from 'dumping' their animals, with microchips or not, is an unhappy fact: prosecutions rarely take place! Also it is dubious whether the larger percentage of Hong Kong's dogs are ever licensed and vaccinated against rabies. But, if Mr Kwok's two dogs did have microchips, he would have been informed immediately and reunited with them as soon as possible. And as to the muzzles, well why were they wearing them? Perhaps because they were not fully socialised and therefore a potential threat? The department does not arbitrarily destroy dogs in their care, even though the staggering 900 or so put down every month is quite shocking. Efforts are made to rehouse those dogs deemed suitable. It is regrettable that Mr Kwok's dogs were not among them, and maybe now he could extend his obvious love and devotion to two more of the hundreds of dogs anxious for a chance of life in the animal-rescue shelters throughout the city. J. Green, Lantau I refer to the article 'Boy, 9, killed on his way to school' on the front page of City on Wednesday. It is possible that a cultural difference of opinion regarding journalistic standards may play a part in what I have to say regarding this article. The tragic circumstances surrounding this young boy's death seemed clouded by the writers need to amplify his 'developmental disorder' in the fact he suffered from dyslexia. I cannot see any relevance or the need to 'fill out' the story content by highlighting at all, let alone the great lengths your reporter did, in revealing the young boy's dyslexia and how it has affected his schooling progress in his formative years. How was this related to this tragic accident? Even in death, thanks to your paper, Lo Hon-foon is being spoken of as if he were inferior in some way. Sadly, in this case it was via a very public medium. The article was appalling and did nothing to further the reputation of the South China Morning Post. My deepest sympathy to Hon-foon's family. I hope they are aware that some of us out here see this young's man loss of life as a tragedy, and feel we have no business in having to know anything of his personal difficulties in life. Tyrone Simes, Tsim Sha Tsui I refer to your article headlined 'Tamar red tape puts action stars on hold' (February 7) and would like to set the record straight. The District Lands Office of Hong Kong West and South received an application from the Hong Kong International Film Festival Society last July for use of the Tamar site for the period between this April 1 and 9. The district office replied to the society in early August that its application was not accepted as the office was in the process of reviewing the future use of the site at that time. The review included tendering the site by short-term tenancy in 2006. On January 11, 2006, the society reapplied for use of the site from April 12 to 18. The applicant submitted another letter on January 19 requesting to advance the occupation period to commence on March 27. The office has duly considered the request in consultation with relevant departments in accordance with the established procedures. Approval of the application was issued on Wednesday, 13 working days after receipt of the revised application. Regarding the claim that the organiser of the event 'Wild Day Out' received approval just two days before the show, in fact, the organiser applied in early June last year for temporary occupation of the Tamar site for the period from December 21 to 25 last year. Approval was given to the applicant on September 1, nearly four months before the event. The applicant subsequently requested to reschedule the occupation period to December 22 to 27. Again, approval to the rescheduling request was given promptly on September 16, 2005. G.M. Ross, for Director of Lands
