Editor,
I'm concerned about the recent letters that have been published in the Daily Lobo with regards to smoking on campus and the dangers of second-hand smoke.
As a social smoker, I'm tired of being labeled as a bad person because of my choice to smoke. I completely understand and agree with the assertion that second-hand smoke is harmful, and I take that into consideration when I smoke.
For example, if a child or group of children is near, I purposefully move to a more isolated location to finish my cigarette. If someone loudly coughs in my direction and glares at me, I take the hint and I'll leave - even though this is a rude gesture on his or her part. I try to be aware of nonsmokers around me because I know that smoking is my choice, not theirs.
All that being said, I was offended by Kristen Woodruff's statement in Thursday's edition of the Daily Lobo. She writes, "The practices of smokers now are in direct violation of nonsmokers' rights."
I oppose this statement, regardless of its veracity, for one reason: Smokers are people too. We aren't a group of nonfeeling predators whose sole existence is based on polluting clean air with our poisonous emissions. In fact, smokers ought to have rights. In the past years, it has become more and more difficult to find acceptable places to indulge. All restaurants have eliminated their smoking sections, and many hotels have prohibited smoking in all rooms, to name a few instances.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Outside is one of the few remaining places where we're still allowed to light up. While this might make perfect sense to nonsmokers who consider second-hand smoke a direct violation of their rights, consider many foreign countries where smokers are not the minority.
In Papua, Indonesia, where I lived for a year, smokers are everywhere. One can smoke in government offices, police stations, in taxis, in restaurants and even in the airport. In the town I lived in, smokers' rights are more important than those of nonsmokers. In order to not be exposed to second-hand smoke, one would have to go outside. The sole reason for this is that smokers are the majority in that city. The sole reason for smokers not having the same privileges as nonsmokers in this country is that we are the minority.
I am not, however, any less of a person than a nonsmoker; I'm not a mindless slave to nicotine. I'm a conscientious human being who deserves the exact same respect as any other member of society. I understand that my unpopular decision to smoke necessarily bans me from certain places, and I think that's fair. All I ask is that nonsmokers recognize me as the human being I am, and not a mindless pollutant or nuisance, and allow me peace in the one remaining environment in which I still can smoke - the outdoors.
No, Woodruff, you shouldn't be punished for choosing not to smoke, but neither should I for choosing to do so. We all have to live together in this world. You allow me my vice, I'll allow you yours. And remember, if the tables were turned and I was a part of the majority, you'd be even more upset.
So be thankful I'm not sitting across from you in the SUB lighting up a cig. All things considered, you nonsmokers have it made. You've successfully banned us from nearly all public places. I'd be counting my blessings, rather than finding more to be upset about.
Emily Flegal
UNM student
