Peter's Brusoe's column about AU's smoking policy in The Eagle's Feb. 7 edition is devoid of anything that could be considered a valid warrant. Nowhere in his column did he mention anything resembling a sound argument.
For example, Brusoe writes, "Many smokers ask the question, 'Is smoking a problem on this campus?' Yes." Yes? Could you please elaborate, Mr. Brusoe? The word "yes" is typically not an argument one could take seriously. I hope Mr. Brusoe is not considering a career in the law profession anytime soon.
Instead of simply providing reasons as to why AU should infringe on the rights of fellow students, Mr. Brusoe provides empty assertions with little to no supporting evidence. Mr. Brusoe writes as though everyone already agrees with him. He writes about the "perpetual cloud of carcinogenic smoke that surrounds the doors to the Mary Graydon Center." What? Again, please elaborate exactly as to what you are talking about, Mr. Brusoe. I have never in my year and a half been the victim of a "perpetual cloud ... of smoke" here at AU. I hope this is not the type of journalism encouraged at The Eagle.
The question Mr. Brusoe needs to answer is why the SG or administration should infringe on the rights of students. His assertion that students need to be educated about the harms of smoking is not only insulting but quite hilarious. If Mr. Brusoe wants to engage in a serious debate about smoking on campus, I would welcome such a discussion. What he does in his column, though, is provide empty assertions with nothing resembling valid warrants.
Voltaire Cortez Sophomore School of Public Affairs
