I’d like to respond to George Bruhn’s article on Smoke-Free logic.
You have said in your article on campus smoking policy exactly what I have been thinking since the changes went into effect. Why not have a smoking dorm? Why not have an indoor place where those who choose to live their life according their own choices can go have a cigarette and not freeze their hands off in Mid-February Rochester? Sure smoking is bad for you, but so are a myriad of other things in this life that we do anyway. Think of how bad alcohol is for you. Many, many students drink on campus, and yet they have not banned alcohol from campus. At the very least, smokers should have some way to smoke on this campus without dying of cold. I’ve always said that smokers in Rochester will die of hypothermia before they die of cancer or emphysema because of the way they are forced out into the cold to make use of their rights. I do believe that roommates shouldn’t have to put up with smoking if they don’t want to (that is, if they signed up to live without a smoker). However, why shouldn’t the smokers have somewhere, anywhere, to go express their choices? We don’t tell protestors, “you’re bothering me and I believe you to be a threat to my health; you are banished from campus”. We don’t tell people who get drunk underage, never mind those 21 or older, “you are a threat to your health and the health of those around you; you are no longer to drink indoors”. And yet, for some reason, we cannot allow those aged 18 or older to have a cigarette inside, because of the threat to others. Personally, I believe a drunkard to be much more dangerous to me than the smoke of some burning tobacco.
-Sasha KucherovClass of 2006×43985
I’d like this letter published anonymously, if possible. If it’s not possible, then you are free to use my name.
