Should NYU faculty and their dependent children receive full tuition remission?
Written in response to "Stop the campaign against smokers" by John Surico in the Nov. 3 issue of WSN
In response to John Surico's Nov. 3 column, I would like to refute his claim that the proposed smoking ban is discriminatory. Smokers choose to smoke: It is not an immutable biological aspect like race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. Furthermore, smoking is not a civil right, but rather a drug that can be regulated (or banned) by the government as we, the voters who elect them, see fit — and by NYU as a private institution in its own right. Equally ridiculous is Surico's claim that smokers cannot help the fact that their smoke enters the air vents of public buildings. They can easily prevent this by not smoking in the first place, or finding a private place to get their nicotine fix. The fact that "everybody does it anyway" (which he more or less states) seems more like a dumb reason that someone would start smoking than a rational defense. He goes on to state that he should have the right to enjoy a cigarette in NYU social spaces outside of buildings. But what about the nonsmokers who wish to enjoy these social spaces? Smoking is a chosen behavior, one that pollutes the air and endangers the people around it. Therefore, NYU has every right to put the comfort, health and convenience of nonsmokers above that of smokers.
Surico says he is tired of being quarantined like an animal. Wrong: Even animals in the wild generally know to avoid behavior that puts their lives in danger. It's called instinct.
hw
Nov 05, 2009
1:47 p.m.
Just because something is a choice doesn't exclude it from being a right. NYU has every right to exclude smoking from it's building, but taking interests and dominion over property they don't own (i.e. the sidewalks) are a bit of a stretch. For the love of god, leave the smokers alone. You've already kicked them out of the buildings, now you're kicking them to the curb. Where will all the hipsters go now?
Bill Santagata
Nov 05, 2009
3:38 p.m.
I did not say that smoking was not a right because it is a choice. I said the policy is not discriminatory because smokers do not -- under any definition of the term -- form a "suspect class," which are used by the judiciary to determine if laws are discriminatory.
The fact remains that smoking is not a right. NYU does not have any right to exclude smoking inside its buildings: the city and state have already passed laws banning smoking inside nearly all public buildings. NYU may not override this. Because there is no right to consume any recreational drug, this is well within the city and state's power and if the people of New York disagree with it, they can elect new representatives.
The sidewalks are public property, but business owners are required to maintain and keep safe the area of the sidewalk abutting their buildings. Does this translate to allowing NYU to ban smoking on the sidewalks in front of their buildings? I'll admit I don't know, and the New York City code's website isn't behaving right now. (http://24.97.137.100/nyc/) But I'll continue to try to look into the matter.
I do hope that NYU takes into account any legal issues with this policy, and I would not support an NYU policy that goes against the law. (I would support a change in the law however: DC is considering a law that would allow property owners to ban smoking within 25 feet of their buildings).
MS
Nov 07, 2009
11:50 a.m.
the argument of this article is completely ridiculous. The author has a point however what are the implications if smoking was illegal in within the proximaty of any building? Ill tell you there would be no where to smoke except "private places". in which case it would be somewhere indoors. And if you think that me smoking in my apt is going to keep it confind to my quarters then i believe you should go reeducate yourself on how smoke dispurses.
Levi-Strauss
Nov 08, 2009
10:03 p.m.
There is a continuum of "harmful behavior," and you're ignoring your "instincts" by living in a city with air quality as poor as New York's. Re-la-ti-vi-ty. Both of your horses are awfully high.
leave a comment
Comments from unregistered users will appear once they are approved. Log in to have your comment show up immediately.