SF State's new mandate suggests that they are making the campus a healthier and safer environment by frowning upon smoking in open areas. But, all students, 21 and up, are still free to head to the pub for a beer after, before or in-between classes. I think if serving alcohol, a mind-altering substance, is permitted on campus, then smoking cigarettes should be permissible too.

Is serving alcohol on campus promoting a safe or healthy environment? Of course not. Cigarettes, alcohol and coffee are the most addicting substances, next heroin and cocaine. So why doesn't the Academic Senate place a ban on alcohol and coffee? Okay, maybe not coffee because it does not alter your state of mind, but definitely alcohol.

My second year at SF State I remember seeing guys go to class late because they were finishing their beers in the pub before class, and I remember thinking, I am glad they are not violent drinkers. The reality is that some people are violent when they drink alcohol. This is why clubs and some bars have security guards.

Now, I have never heard of an incident involving someone from the pub on campus, but that does not mean it has not happened, or it will never happen. Why ban one harmful substance and not the other?

I am well aware that smoke bothers many people, but alcohol may also bother many people. At an institute of higher learning, why would they sell a mind-altering substance? Sure, smoking is not beneficial to smokers, however, tobacco does not alter your mind.

According to Alcoholics Anonymous website, they have an estimated two million members. Many people are in recovery because alcohol is an extremely addictive substance that can destroy lives. Numbers of people blame alcohol for divorce, violence, liver disease and fetal alcohol syndrome, the most common birth deffect.

I agree with President Corrigan in his e-mail to students regarding the new mandate, stating that secondhand smoke is a major health concern. However, secondhand smoke is common in people who live with someone who smokes and are constantly around smoke in an enclosed area, not from walking by a smoker.

An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study states that indoor pollutants are often significantly higher than outdoor pollutants. This is extremely important to know since most people spend 90 percent of their time indoors. Also, the EPA recommends that people, especially parents, do not smoke at home, in their car or around children. Since their organs are not fully developed, children are the number one group affected by secondhand smoke.

Plus, I am more concerned with all the pollution that is already in the air. When I visit Los Angeles, "the smoggy city," it is difficult to be concerned with secondhand smoke when I can look up and see what I am breathing is consistently spread throughout the skyline.

I am not defending smoking just because I smoke, but because I live in America, a place that promotes freedom and certain inalienable rights. These guaranteed rights allow me smoke, just like it allows others to drink alcohol. That is why the campus has a smoking mandate, not a ban, because that would be a violation of my rights and other smoker's rights. Therefore, as long as smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol is legal, there is no immediate reason to ban either.

And yes, people have the right to breathe clean air (everywhere except for Los Angeles) however, one person's rights should never infringe on another individual's rights. So if smokers are courteous and they do not blow smoke in other students or faculty members faces, we should all be fine. Do not violate air space, and hopefully there will be no limitation on the right to pollute your lungs.

In addition, if the school is going to profit from serving alcohol, why not profit from selling cigarettes? This time last year cigarettes sales on campus were haulted and all ashtrays in front of building were removed. I understand that this mandate has been in process for some time, but the bottom line is that people are going to smoke.

Cigarette tax is constantly on the rise, but people still smoke. Smoking was banned in all restaurants and indoor areas in California, but people still smoke. Since people are still going to smoke, SF State should sell cigarettes and maybe they can profit.