Your View: Ban would harm minority rights

I read your article regarding the idea of some people, including Eric Smith, to make Auburn a smoke-free campus.

In human history it has always taken only a few activists and a majority that doesn't care to successfully run over or abuse minorities. Ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation are just some of the most common reasons for discrimination, and many people have severely suffered or died as result of discriminatory persecution.

A sizeable minority of adults at this University enjoy smoking, a common practice in the New World long before Columbus.

Today, smokers are once again the target of people that believe their way of life is the correct and only acceptable one.

The discussions about a "smoke-free campus" are a clear indication that an active movement has begun.

It is not a difficult goal because the majority doesn't smoke and thus, they won't care.

So, what is next? Should obese persons be discriminated against because it provides a bad example to younger generations?

Or shall we discriminate against foreign students whose food has a distinct smell that propagates in hallways?

I am opposed to all forms of discrimination, including discrimination against smokers.

I understand that secondhand indoor smoke may be a problem. Thus, I accept current regulations about smoke free buildings.

However, it is not objectively defensible to suggest that outside smoking will harm anybody. To use this assumption to deprive smokers of their civil rights is obvious discrimination.

Smith's general statements about cancer or chemicals contained in cigarettes miss the point and constitute only a cloud of misinformation, but not facts that support their initiative.

Efforts for declaring outside areas of the University smoke free only serve to divide and such should be therefore discouraged on a university campus.

--Haroldo Toro

professor, pathobiology