Time to (Smart)en Up

If the Star truly edited for decorum, Houghton would be the last place a pro-smoking argument would appear. If you’re reading this, you likely know of the two articles which I refer to. Professor Meilaender asserted that “there are no good reasons for a ban on smoking,” and “Smoking threatens harm to no one other than the smoker.”
As for there being no good reasons to ban smoking, Will’s article on the following page is a good resource. Smoking is fiscally taxing (pun intended), reduces life expectancy and smokers “receive poorer medical treatment.” Meilaender’s arguments against drinking also apply, such as sickness, wasted weekends and social (olfactory) negatives. Who wants to hang around someone that smells like smoke? “Not I” said the duck.
As for the absurd claim that smoking only threatens the smoker, the American Lung Association and I would disagree. According to the ALA, second hand smoke is responsible for nearly 40,000 deaths a year (more than car accidents), 176,000 cases of lung cancer (which, by the way, went unmentioned in both articles) and 140,000 cases heart disease – I’d say that’s harmful. Even if they smoke outside, it would still aggravate two growing trends in America: asthma and allergies. By the way, why do you support kicking smokers outside, I thought smoking only threatens the smoker.
If we truly want students with “healthy minds, bodies and hearts” then you’d be foolish to think that smoking will aid that goal – we want to increase our numbers, not kill them off. “What cruel person would wish to punish these poor souls any further?” Apparently you and Professor Meilaender would by desiring that they be allowed to continue smoking. Each article stated that smoking was its’ own punishment. If so, why do we want to allow Houghton students to punish themselves?
There’s this work of Christian literature called the Bible which contains this fragment called a verse letting us know that ‘our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit’. Most readers will know that Jesus didn’t take too kindly to a defamation of His temple last time around and smoking isn’t exactly spraying Febreeze around the place.
If either of you know anything about your field, you’d know image is everything. If Houghton allowed smoking, they wouldn’t be very qualified to claim a healthy, environmental Christian campus. The ‘Houghton Puff of Smoke’ isn’t as alluring as the ‘Houghton Bubble.’ In President Mullen’s advice suggesting we try to “be Houghton” to others, I don’t think giving them lung cancer is what she had in mind.
Will, this is the second article of yours that has been pointed out to be poor. I’d say stick to poli-sci, but from Professor Meilaender’s lack of wisdom, it doesn’t look like his tutelage will get you very far. Don’t worry Professor Meilaender, there’s at least one more prejudice in the world, especially in the academic community – that against unintelligence, like that displayed by uneducated statements like “there are no good reasons for a ban on smoking.” We don’t need to get high from smoking. This is Houghton, we’re high on Jesus.