Letter to Editor by Kevin Ulmer

Paternalistic ban on smoking? Though I think smokers should be able to smoke outside away from people that value their life, I find the lack of support for this ban a little surprising. But on the other hand, the ban’s supporters are getting what they want, so why comment?

As far as the college being paternalistic in banning smoking, it seems quite necessary when looking at the slideshow of pictures from the “protest.” Putting cigarettes in a statue’s mouth, filling cracks with cigarette butts and smoking five cigarettes at a time; wow, quite the stance for a group of people calling this ban “paternal.” Perhaps UK should have been more selective when choosing to admit such sophomoric students and perhaps there should be more paternalistic rules.

But you are right; you should be allowed to smoke, and to die, for that matter. However, I would doubt that you would be willing to die without seeing a doctor for the illnesses associated with your “habit.” And I doubt you’d be willing to go to work on days you feel sick or are coughing up a lung from your habit.

But, I double dare you: Don’t have the surgery on that growth in your mouth and resist the oxygen tank that you now need because your lungs no longer function to the degree mine do. Go for it.

So it is with a stone-cold heart I say, if you want to smoke, do it, but don’t bash non-smokers that pay for the ever-increasing hospital bills that you accumulate because of your addiction.

And don’t bash an administrations and an organization for being paternalistic in creating an environment that accommodates people who value their health, not to mention making an effort to educate them. After all, this is a college.

Kevin Ulmer

biomechanics graduate student