Dear Horizon editors,

I’m writing this in reference to the article “Tobacco policy enforcement being reviewed.” Where’s the argument in the case of the tobacco reinforcement? The argument is based completely as a statement.

The only people quoted in the article are non-smokers. There is nothing in the article to show any reader the other side of the story. Where is the opposing opinion in the on-going battle between smokers and non-smokers? This isn’t for those enforcing the policy, this is for those making it. This article has a flaw that most readers are going to overlook.

The article clearly states the non-smokers view of smoking. Apparently, they don’t like it, therefore, they don’t smoke. Okay, everyone gets that and it has been dually noted.

My problem though, is that there is no opposing opinion to the article. Where are the people who smoke and where are their statements and views? If you are going to talk about something that has two sides, then get both sides.

The whole idea of this reform in the policy is being made with no opposition. Their idea of fining those who smoke outside of their vehicle, assuming they have one, is ridiculous. I feel that they are not giving the smokers a chance. According to Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, Dana Wavle, the designated areas to smoke are in the smoker’s vehicle. What about those who don’t or even can’t drive to disability of lack of funds? Where are they supposed to go? The non-smokers don’t care about them; they only care about what they want. I say give the smokers a chance, give them an area to go to and smoke. Let them have an area to build a shelter and maintain it. There are plenty of locations around the country that are smoke-free but accommodate for the people who do smoke. Give them an area they can go smoke and leave it to them to keep it clean — and not just one but maybe two or three shelters in locations out of the way of the non-smokers, but in an easy access place for the ones who do.

I feel that the article was not fair to all those it involved. It only supports the non-smokers views and not the ones that would have been stated by the smokers. If you are going to make a statement with the views coming from a group of people, especially in such a mass size, the opposing opinion should be stated and supported.

Cameron Cooper
Freshman