I believe I'm a little late on reading about the rhetoric concerning a possible smoking ban on campus, and I usually hoot-and-holler and wouldn't write in, but I have an issue with how things seem to be viewed nowadays.
That issue is something I thought this country was built upon--choice.
First, let me be clear. I am not denying that smoking is detrimental to health. That's also kind of the issue.
I do not think it could be more clear to convey that smoking is bad for you than the current way we advertise them.
Despite this, there are individuals who still chose to indulge in this activity.
Now I believe the concern of the University is to protect those that chose not to smoke, and that is fine. But smokers are restricted to smoking outdoors and the smoke emitted is generally dispersed rapidly.
If smoking outdoors is so terrible, what about the numerous other environmental pollutants present? Are we going to ban cars and buses on campus, too?
But, alas, my main point: this proposal is aimed at protecting the majority and hurts the minority. We applaud this as being democratic. Really? It's not like smokers are pillaging the campus. "We'll just implement a policy that would discourage them."
If that's the case, do svidaniya, comrades.
--Mark Durham, grad student
entomology & plant pathology
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
