To the Editor:

 Uncategorized
Oct 022003
 
Authors:

I am responding to Christopher Ortiz’s article in the Sept. 30

issue of The Collegian, “Double penalty is unfair.” The fact of the

matter is that CSU is an organization that has the ability to make

policies as the administration sees fit and Mr. Ortiz chooses to

attend. This is not “a direct violation of students’ civil rights.”

In the real world, a CEO of a company would be fired immediately if

he or she was brought up on assault and battery charges. You would

probably lose your job at the gas station if you tested positive

for cocaine. If you commit a crime as a private citizen, it will

affect many other aspects of your life.

I think it is entirely fair for the university to reserve the

right to suspend or expel a student who sells drugs to get through

college. To my knowledge, no CSU student has been sentenced to

additional jail time by the Discipline Panel. Honestly, I really

don’t want to go to a school where riots, alcohol and drug abuse

run rampant. The riot bill is a bit ridiculous, but watching

students get tear-gassed a few years back at Mile

High was significantly more ridiculous.

In the future please try to keep your raging liberalism somewhat

contained, and maybe throw in an example of a student being

unfairly treated and scapegoated (if it has ever happened).

Adam Rosenbaum

Junior, mechanical engineering

 

 

 

 Posted by at 5:00 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

To the Editor:

 Uncategorized  Add comments
Oct 022003
 
Authors:

To the Editor:

This is in response to Wednesday’s column by Liz King and

Christopher Ortiz, which argues that the Fort Collins smoking ban

“violates people’s civil rights” and that “it is not the place of

the government to dictate what occurs on private property.”

You don’t really say how the ban violates civil rights, and the

only specific reference to law is the Fourth Amendment. If that’s

the basis of your claim, that’d be civil liberties, not civil

rights. But it doesn’t matter: there’s no smoking provision in the

Constitution or the Civil Rights Act.

As to government dictating what occurs on private property…

huh?! The government has the obligation to establish laws that

prohibit injuring other people’s health.

You state that cigarettes are legal, so you should be able to

smoke in private places. Strychnine’s legal too-you can buy it with

proper ID. But does that mean I can walk into a restaurant and

spray the place? Of course not. And if I did, you’d want the

government there right quick.

Look, I’m no anti-smoking nut. In fact I don’t care. Somebody

wants to tar their lungs? Fine. Somebody wants to smell like a

decomposing moose? Fine. Somebody wants to wrinkle their skin to

rotten-apple? Great! Makes me look better!

But if you think you have a “right” to pollute my lungs, to make

me stink, to cover my skin in that cancer-fog oozing out of your

face, you’re dead wrong. There are no smoking “rights” and with

good reason.

Thomas Wanebo

Senior, history & English

 

 

 

 Posted by at 5:00 pm