Excessive policing

I enjoy celebrating my weekends after days absorbed in text after text and studying long into each night. I benefit from surrounding myself with friends searching for the same escape from the tedious weekday crawl. As adults we should not be denied these freedoms. It has come to my knowledge, however, that each tenant at Copper Beech Townhomes, located on Bluegrass Road, has received a notice that new security has been throughout the property since Sept. 4. The security is completely separate from the Mount Pleasant Police and is said to keep the units safe; unfortunately, the officers have been interpreted as threatening and inappropriate to many leasers I have spoken to about this issue.

The notification explains that the Absolute Security & Protective Service (A.S.P.S.) officers will be in and around the unit patrolling, as policemen would, assigning fines and reporting violations. Mount Pleasant already has superior police activity. There have been no complaints that I have been aware of that the performance of the police force has been anything less than satisfactory.

So I ask, then, why do the residents at Copper Beech need more restrictions from the A.S.P.S. when the Mount Pleasant Police are doing an adequate job? And more importantly, why should Copper Beech’s management risk a positive relationship with its lease holders with a threat of unnecessary precautions?

The letter, to most lessees I have spoken with, translates as intimidating and an extreme measure to keep the “peace” in the complex. I quote the notice in saying, “. (A.S.P.S. Officers) are not here to be friendly. They are highly trained and in some cases armed.” However, with the A.S.P.S. roaming the boundaries of the complex, many residents have felt uncomfortable having a few friends over to have a good time in fear of being fined (up to $3,500).

The Mount Pleasant Police should handle the rowdier students so that the rest of us can enjoy our time at CMU without the placing us in a child-proofed environment such as that imposed by the A.S.P.S.

Lindsey Digue, Mount Pleasant sophmore

Smoking Ban

Ban smoking in bars, restaurants or any other private business? Absolutely not. Jeff Robinson’s Sept. 17 letter couldn’t be more wrong when he states that Mount Pleasant should enact anti-smoking ordinances like New York City.

He claims that due to his major being Health Fitness, he has been made “very aware” of the dangers of smoking. Good for him, but I’ve known that smoking is bad since elementary school. It’s also irrelevant to the argument. I’ve worked as a bouncer for a bar in Traverse City in the past, and I can tell you that alcohol can lead to fights. Should we ban alcohol from restaurants and bars? No.

So if smoking is bad for one’s health, then why shouldn’t the government ban it from restaurants and bars? It’s quite simple, because restaurants and bars are private establishments. If one doesn’t like the fact that an establishment allows smoking inside their premises, they certainly don’t have to patronize it. Assuming a proprietor is competent, the smoking policy of an establishment will be more than aptly determined by the market.

Thinking an establishment is public just because it invites the public is a flawed perception that unfortunately many people have. It is this perception that empowers people to advocate banning smoking in restaurants and bars despite the fact that a majority of its patrons have no issues that prevent their continued support of these establishments. I could have told you this even if I wasn’t a business major. However, like I mentioned, it’s a flawed perception.

Jason Gillman Jr., Traverse City senior

E-mail the author: defaultuser