The world is often said to be divided among a variety of classes: monarchist and republican, conservationist and poacher, bourgeois and proletariat, labor and management.

The emergence of the health and fitness revolution in recent years has brought forward other classes in society: skinny and fat, vegetarian and meat-eater, and smoker and non-smoker.

The latter are probably the two most vocal classes of the health revolution as labor and management were dominant in the post-industrial revolution era.

This spring, U.S. Surgeon General C. Everret Koop’s attack on smoking fueled a fiery debate on the issue of smoking. After the speech, protagonists of smokers have been frequently losing citadels. The newest salvo against them comes in legal action.

To reduce the domestic pollution, some big cities, including Chicago, passed regulations banning smoking in taxicabs, meeting rooms and at least partially, in airports, train stations, bus depots and restaurants.

The Chicago ordinance empowers the affected person to complain. Although a police officer cannot arrest the smoker on the spot, he can ticket the smoker from $25 to $100. The smoker can later appeal the citation.

The question is whether lodging complaints will solve the problem.

Before DeKalb City Council or NIU authorities begin adopting similar regulations, let us seek an answer to the above question.

While pointing out that the Chicago ordinance does not give officers the power of arrest, Chicago Police Supt. LeRoy Martin said, “Nonsmokers should give dirty looks to people smoking where they should not.”

I contacted Martin. While confirming the statement, Martin explianed he would “prefer disapproving looks instead of dirty looks.”

Again, will the dirty look or disapproving look solve the problem? And dirty look or disapproving look against whom or what?

Should it be against smokers or against cigarettes? After all, the main culprit is the cigarette. Smokers are only pawns in the jagged fist of cigarettes.

And smokers are not aliens from other planets; they are siblings, parents, friends, and co-workers. Can you imagine looking at your smoking father in the manner suggested by Martin?

Smoking outside Swen Parson, Georgeta Morosanu, an employee of NIU’s Administrative Information Services, said, “We show our compassion toward physically and mentally handicapped, even toward victims of AIDS. Why can’t we display the same tolerance toward smokers who today or tomorrow are going to recover from the nicotine addiction.”

Morosanu does not like to smoke in a designated area—an overcrowded place filled with strangers and spiralling smoke searching for an outlet.

I am not endorsing smoking. I do not smoke. Neither does Garry Miller, spokesman of the Tobacco Institute, who says he quit smoking 20 years ago.

Many smokers know that every puff avoided adds one more second in their already shortened lives. Further, smokers do not enjoy puffing in other people’s faces. A lot of smokers feel guilty; a lot of them are good mannered. Most of the smokers do not identify smoking with any First Amendment right.

In fact, smokers are the pallbearers of our past fad. In history, they will be remembered as the blinking dinosaurs of the 20th century.

Fortunate are those who do not smoke or who have quit smoking. Blessed are those who help others quit smoking. Let us create support groups.

Before giving a dirty look or disapproving look aganst any smoker, ask yourself two questions: Would you look at your parents or siblings the same way as you are doing now? If not, what would you do to persuade them to cease and desist?

Please try that persuasive technique on others.

Moin H. Kahn

Graduate Student