Editor,
I feel I must address Rachel Berardinelli's letter about the potential smoking ban. She raises two issues. The first is valid - Friday's issue of the Daily Lobo presented a bad case for the smoke-free campus initiative. Opinions of people like Alex Hansell, who have no valid reason aside from their dislike of smokers to rid the campus of smoke, are not representative of the UNM Smoke-Free Campus Coalition's position.
There are many valid reasons to remove smoking from the UNM campus. For one, secondhand smoke is a direct and
concentrated pollutant that is harmful to every student, faculty, staff member and visitor to the
campus.
Berardinelli's more vividly presented point is that blocking smoking on campus would be paramount to returning to "segregation of all forms." Segregation against African-Americans, gay people, Jews and people who don't speak English has no valid similarity to smokers. People are born African-Americans, or they are born into families that do not speak English. However, the vast majority of people are not born addicted to nicotine. That is a choice smokers make.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
You are absolutely entitled to make your personal choices. However, when your choices affect my health and the health of every other person on campus, the situation is unacceptable.
Our country seeks to balance majority rule with minority rights. Typically, minority rights are protected. However, the minority rights of a group should not be protected when the exercise of that right infringes on the rights of others. All people are born with the need for clean, healthy air. Thus, the birth-right of clean air must supersede smokers' desire for their addictive fix. In a very public place like UNM, the needs and rights of all must take precedent over the desire of a few.
Nathaniel Schneider
UNM student
