I don’t smoke.
I don’t like the smell of cigarette smoke and think that it is very difficult to mask a smoker’s breath and stale clothing.
But does general dislike give me the right to abolish a smoker’s habit? Because I have the ability to abolish a behavior I don’t participate in, does that make it legal or worth advocating?
By instituting a smoking ban on OSU campus, the administration uses the guise of health and environmental issues to excuse that they are making an immoral decision that takes away freedom and individual choice.
Imagine that you get pleasure from eating watermelon Bubble Yum gum.
The smells and taste satisfy your daily need for a sugar rush. Then, the person next to you tells you they can’t stand the smell of watermelon and is disgusted by your incessant smacking. This person passes policies to stop you from eating watermelon gum. Then that person claims that eating watermelon gum only hurts you and they want to protect you, the chewer, from the potential harm. Sounds crazy?
Health and medical issues are the main arguments that smoking opposition gives in its excuse to regulate citizen’s behavior.
Apparently, the government (and the university as a branch of government) finds it necessary to save humans from their own intentions and actions (for their own good, of course).
Shane Gilley, a Ph.D candidate in screen studies, says, “The ban demonizes legal adult behavior. If the dangers were realistically, scientifically looked at by the university, they’d realize it is more dangerous to walk through a parking lot (danger of smog, exhaust, and getting hit by a vehicle), walk down the stairs at Morrill, cross the street during rush hour, or drive to school.”
Instead of just saying the reason for the ban is because of whiny nonsmokers who find smoking disgusting and don’t like it, smoking bans across America are made in the name of the smokers themselves. It offends me that particular people and organizations have chosen to ostracize smokers as evil and dirty with the full intention of “saving” them.
By banning smoking on campus, the university is not saying to me “we cherish clean air” or “we value your health.”
What the university is saying is “we don’t cherish your freedom” and “we value control.”
Graduate English student and avid smoker Soumitra Ghosh explains how the ban isn’t just about the inability to smoke freely on campus. “The smoking ban on campus is indicative of a larger tendency toward conservatism. It also indicates a disturbing approach toward the idea of consensus which forces itself on the dissenting individual.”
OSU will get a lot of positive press because of the smoking ban. OSU will also feel like it is moving toward a cleaner and healthier campus when in fact it is only creating an environment that restricts and punishes free choice. As a center of thinking and learning, OSU should be the ideal place to proudly exhibit and explore differences, not a reflection of fears and inability to accept others that chose different lifestyles.
Loading ...
All Articles
Tolson does makes some great arguments in this article. I’m, like Tolson, not a smoker, but my mother used to smoke. So, I have been around it every since a was little. I do not care if people smoke on campus. As long as they do not blow smoke in my face. I do not like the smell of smoke, but I do not believe in taking away someone elses freedom. If a smoker respects none smokers space, then they are not hurting anyone, and should have the right to make their own choice. I really like the bubble gum example she used. Very well writen article.
Tolson is right in her article about the fact that the ban violates free choice. The giant farm trucks and diesel engines that are seen driving around AG-Hall are more pollutant than a cigarette. I would like to place a ban on driving F-350’s or Dodge Ram 2500’s and 3500’s on campus.
Come on, are we really that surprised?
At the outset, I should confess that I’m a former smoker and, frankly, I dug it. Didn’t like the tobacco stains between my teeth, my foul-smelling clothes, or the smoker’s lines I developed after 5 years … but few things in life are as pleasurable as a cup of coffee and a cigarette in the morning, or after a good meal. Am I right, smokers? — I’m also a fan of individual liberty. I believe we should largely be able to do what we want with our bodies; after all, I don’t want some senator or congressman or bureaucrat or whoever telling me how to live my life, especially when he/she is legislating from a distance. (It’s not as though they have a true, deep-seated personal concern for my being. The, “It’s for your own good” rationale is flimsy.)
BUT…
In a *public* space, individual liberties take a back seat to the public good. Sure, I know “public good” is often difficult to pin down or agree upon. We do all sorts of nasty things in the name of public good (a.k.a. utilitarianism) that don’t strike me as good, at all. But an individual’s “rights” will and should take a back seat. Using the logic of “It’s my right to smoke,” I would answer: “Well then, it’s my right to dance a jig naked in the middle of Perkins during rush hour. It’s a public road, ain’t it?” Of course, one is more immediately dangerous than the other, but you get the point. — In private spaces (or others that allow for smoking), do what you want. In public, you’ve got to give up some rights. And this is nowhere near “oppression.” You should spend some time in California, if you think so.
If there’s anything disappointing about the “Breathe Easy” campaign, it’s in the campaign’s naivete. I didn’t develop breathing problems until I got to Oklahoma (and I’m from Dallas–not the cleanest air!), and I blame that on a number of factors. Dust. Allergens. Wind. “Gunk” in general. With respect to OSU, am I “breathing easy” when I walk by the various construction zones and get a blast of concrete dust and diesel? — Finally, if the University wants to eliminate tobacco from campus partly for our collective respiratory health, great. But they should also disclose the other various incentives (financial, public image) behind the move.
I chew a lot and smoke occasionally or I should say I smoke when I drink. I’m a pretty big fan of tobacco I guess you could say. Cigarette smoke doesn’t particularly bother me. But…
Unless you live in Morril and spend every waking moment there or somewhere on campus and are a smoker then you could have something to argue. However, if you are on campus a just few hours a day then how hard is it to just wait and smoke when you go home or on your way home. If your faculty why not just smoke when you go to lunch. I don’t see any harm in “Breathe Easy” other than someone not being able to satisfy a craving. There is a lot more good that can come from it than bad. As far as the “giant farm trucks” and “diesel engines”, Oklahoma State is known for agriculture and “giant farm trucks” are essential.
Im pretty certain OU is not tobacco free so I would think if it bothered people bad enough they could just transfer.
What is the smoking ban really going to do? Nothing, smokers are still going to smoke anytime they feel the need. I myself could care less if others smoke, but I try not to. Before this ban was put into effect there was a ban from smoking 25 feet from any building, but every day you walk to class and see at someone smoking 5 feet from the door. In classes there is “No Tobacco Use” on the chalk board but still students chew and dip. Now after the ban walking around campus there are still students smoking, they are just more aware of those who are watching them. I do not believe there is any reasonable way of enforcing this rule unless multiple OSU police are walking the campus. In my mind this would be a huge waste of our law enforcements time. Instead let them look for drunk drivers, criminals, or anyone else that looks to do the students or this campus any harm. In my opinion this ban though may be for the good of those that do not smoke/clean air, is pointless and will not be enforced without wasting the time of our OSU police.
If this ban is about having a healthy campus [based upon concerns that second-hand smoke shouldn't be breathed by non-smokers], then the logical extension must be that oSu is, or should be, concerned with the health of everybody on campus - not just non-smokers. Accordingly, next up, oSu, in all of its parental wisdom, will seek to ban fatty foods, soft drinks, getting too much sun and failure to exercise from campus, too. I can see it now, people being forced to perform tai chi outside, while being refreshed by green tea and tofu.
This isn’t about having a healthy campus. This is about an ongoing and insidious effort by the State, or an affiliate of the State, to insert its presence into the personal lives of every individual, whether they like it or not. The State, in all of its omniscient and omnipresent glory, knows what is good for you. It knows better than you do. Don’t ask questions. Don’t argue. Just do as you’re told. Obey the State.
The thing is - for those who think that they know what is better for us than we do - how many of them are overweight, drink too much, get too much sun and fail to exercise? Why is it that they feel compelled to clean up our front porches, when theirs are just as cluttered?
As for me, I don’t smoke. But, smoking isn’t the issue. This is just another way for the State to condition the People into accepting, by increments, an ever increasing, and ever demanding, State presence in their personal lives.
No thanks. I’ll take care of myself.
Smoking bans are the real threat to Democracy
Government power real health hazard
The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of “second-hand” smoke.
Indeed, the bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat, a cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved – the cancer of unlimited government power.
The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. The issue is: If it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the “right” decision?
Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than trying to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the bans are the unwanted intrusion.
Loudly billed as measures that only affect “public places,” they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops and offices – places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don’t like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is negligible, such as outdoor public parks.
The decision to smoke, or to avoid “second-hand” smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on.
All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must be free because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only his own judgment can guide him through it.
Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are a numerical minority, practising a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.
That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the unlimited intrusion of government into our lives. We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour.
——————————————————————————–
Thomas Laprade,
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph.807 3457258_________________
The argument in this column suggests banning smoking is because the smell of smoke bothers non-smokers, and compares this to banning watermelon gum. Seriously? Watermelon gum odor does not contain toxic chemical compounds such as tar, nicotine, carbon monoxide, arsenic, ammonia, benzene, cadmium, and don’t forget the lovable cadaver preserver… formaldehyde. Watermelon gum odor does not contain 4000 chemicals (43 known carcinogens) or cause heart disease, stroke and nearly 1 out of 5 deaths annually in the U.S alone (438,000/year)*. Smoking does. If this sounds like fun to you (not to mention yellow teeth, coughing and perpetually reeking, making my health insurance costs higher) then this is a free country and you’re free to make the expensive and deadly mistake of smoking. But in case you’ve never heard of second hand smoke, it is much more than just annoying for we non-smokers…it has been estimated that “secondhand smoke exposure causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700–69,600 heart disease deaths annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States” alone (California EPA). I don’t like the smell of watermelon gum, B.O., or tobacco smoke – but the first two won’t give me cancer so they’re perfectly legal. Yes, you have the right to be smoke if you hate your lungs, but you DO NOT have the right to kill my lungs too.
Congratulations to OSU for banning smoking.
-Andrew, Proud 2005 OSU Alum
*http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/SecondhandSmoke.htm
Drew:
I smoke and I don’t hate my lungs. And before you tell me that my life will be cut short, let me ask you how long you’re gonna live.
Quoting a rotten- to- the- core outfit like the California EPA on any environmental matter is an unfunny joke.
Your argument, taken directly from Robert Wood Johnson propaganda, is based on the notion that a wisp of smoke is deadly. If you can prove this notion, you’ll have an argument.
Drew: please produce 1 single death certificate that shows the cause as second hand smoke… and that the person lived in a cave with no chance of any other possible causes, including carcinogens in food, water, and air.
I agree with the comment from J. Hatfield. If this smoking ban is really about creating a healthy campus, then the university should schedule a mandatory exercise time each work day for all employees. Each supervisor/department head will be responsible for leading their faculty/staff in daily exercise. If you refuse to participate, your supervisor will give you a verbal warning, then a written warning, and finally, you will be asked to resign. Ha! Give me a break.
I think this smoking ban is geared more towards university employees than it is towards our students. When a student is caught smoking, who is supposed to reprimand them? Will that student be asked to report to the conduct office? Has this policy really been thought out? I don’t think so….
The tobacco war is financed by the obscene wealth of Big Pharma. Tobacco is the best antidepressant known to man and they want to replace it with a daily handful of prescription antidepressants at ten prices.
And that is why you have a tobacco war. It’s not about “health”, it’s about enhancing the power and profits of the medical establishment.They have no intention of stopping with smoking.
PLEASE EXPLAIN:
If the intention of the policy is to override individual liberty for the sake of the student body by eliminating harmful smoke, why is it that ALL TOBACCO products are banned?!?! I can wrap my head around banning smoking due to the impeachment of other people’s rights (Health) but how do you rationalize banning smokeless tobacco products? The only possible answer to this is the obvious one: This policy is intended to override personal liberties because the state knows better than you.
Next, trans fats
After that, mandated physical education credits for every degree
I will be honest, I would support the school removing the Taco Mayo, Chick-Fil-A, and any other places that serve food that is so full of lard that it is useless.
I would also support mandated physical education class/classes. Why? Because look at how fat we are as a nation. People do not understand how to eat healthy, and if they do, then they are to lazy to even try.
It isn’t hard to get sushi, or a salad while at the Student Union. Instead, you see the line for pizza, and fried chicken being longer than most roller coaster lines.
Nick, you should be gratified that a slew of corrupt politicians voted to ban tobacco. But if you or they try to ban pizza, I predict they’ll get their tail stepped on.
And if anyone insists that I should eat raw fish instead of fried chicken, I’ll do the tail stomping personally.
Who’s minding your business?
It’s amazing to me how we continue to have “educated folks” talking about there being no proof of the dangers of secondhand smoke.
Secondhand smoke is comprised of two types of smoke. Mainstream smoke is “filtered” through the cigarette filter and the lungs of the smoker. Sidestream smoke comes from the end of the cigarette, which burns at a lower combustion and releases more carcinogens.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
states that nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their heart disease risk by 25 to 30% and their lung cancer risk by 20 to 30%.
In 2006, U.S. Surgeon General, Richard Carmona released the 29th Durgeon General’s Report on Smoking and Health. The conclusions were based upon standardized criteria of causality and systematic review of published scientific evidence. The senior scientific editor was Dr. Jonathan Samet, one of the leading researchers on secondhand smoke. 22 national experts served as primary chapter authors, 40 international experts served as chapter peer reviewers, and included 30 senior scientific reviewers with diverse perspectives. Some of the findings:
Breathing even a little secondhand smoke can be dangerous.
Inhaling even a small amount can damage your cells and set the cancer process in motion.
Brief exposures can have immediate effects on the cardiovascular system that are almost as large as those observed in active smokers.
There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard that causes premature death and disease in children and nonsmoking adults.
How much more proof do you people need?
Diego, please see my comment above. The point is that they are masking this policy under the guise of health concerns (which I agree are legitimate). How can they justify banning smokeless tobacco products on campus while still maintaining the reasoning of keeping non-tobacco using students safe? They can’t; thus the true motivation must be that they are creating this policy to try to protect tobacco using students from themselves. This being the case, whats next?
And of course people will say that, yes, transfats are bad for you so lets get rid of them. Yes, America has a high obesity rate, so lets incorporate Physical Education credit hours for all college students.
The point is that this logic is not merely a trend of OSU, but of the entire United States. And this logic dictates that the government knows better then the public and thus has the right to eliminate freedoms as they see fit in order to protect citizens from themselves.
Joe, that was mainly sarcasm. Just saying that if they are truly concerned about health why not remove fast food.
Diego:
The definitive studies on tobacco were done back in the fifties when scientists tried and failed to give lab animals diseases with heavy doses of smoke. This fact is absolute proof that smoking or smelling it is harmless.
Richard Carmona’s report was based on William Reilley’s notorious EPA report of 1992 that was declared fraudulent by a federal judge. The Congressional Research Service reached the same conclusion.
Carmona’s contract was not renewed–a polite way of saying he was kicked as far as possible–and now works for a health spa.
I suspect that you’re a paid antitobacco operative. If so, you need some new material.
Heh, while I’m against the ban as I think its an infringement on private rights, I think that the smokers got what was coming to them by always crowding right by the doors (illegaly) and throwing their trash all over the ground. Abuse something long enough, and people will find a way to take it away from you.
Hey Joe Camel, the 1970s called, they want their smoking ideals back.
All your little studies on animals and smoke prove is that lab animals don’t get cancer the same ways humans do. It’s the same principle as the rats that got cancer from Sweet ‘n’ Low. The lab animals got sick, but Sweet ‘n’ Low has yet to cause cancer in humans.
Nice try, though.
B Schmidt:
I wouldn’t dignify your statement with a response except to point out that humans are animals.
Ms. Tolson you bring up some mighty fine points. The smoking ban can seem in a way like more forced control from the University or less liberty for the student. Who knows maybe that was the intention of many people who signed the ban into action. However, we cant go to extremes. Let’s find a compromise. I am a non-smoker who would rather compromise with those that do puff instead of taking all their smoking privileges away and dealing with their withdrawals. What would be wrong with having a few designated areas around campus for smokers, not necessarily the middle of the Union or Library but on campus none the less? With this solution, there wouldn’t be cigarette smoke encompassing the entire campus, the air would still be much cleaner than before the ban, and smokers would feel as though they were living under American government instead of some communist regime. Compromise, give and take if you will, it would benefit all, and promote unity.
Jonathan Benham:
The school’s purpose is to prevent tobacco use in accord with World Health Organization dictates. (No smokeless tobacco either, although I don’t know how they’d police it.)
Smoking areas on campus would not serve this purpose.
Joe, unless you’re reading something completely different, nowhere did I say that humans weren’t animals.
All animals’ bodies are different. Birds are animals, too. You don’t see humans flapping their arms and taking off into flight.
Weak argument, man.
B. Schmidt:
The most rigorous scientific methods were used in the fifties animal studies using many different species. It is an accepted fact that if smoke is harmless to a beagle or chimpanzee or rat that it is likewise harmless to humans. Scientists prove this with soap and medicines and eye shadow as well.
To say that smoke gives cancer to humans but not to any other species is patent nonsense –scientifically and common sensically. And if you can PROVE harm to humans, instead of regurgitating junk science and media lies, you’ll be the first.
Stating that OSU banned smoking on campus as a form of oppression, rather than for the benefit of health, can be seen by some as harsh, but it just goes to show that the truth hurts at times. As someone who enjoys smoking on occasion, I can say that I am somewhat upset that OSU is now a tobacco-free campus, but I can also go along with the health nuts, as well, because I realize cigarettes have no benefit. Also, I cannot bear the scent of smoke at times, so I could also agree with those complaining about the smell. On the flip side, I do not agree with those who work to ban smoking on campus just for the mere fact that it does not please the olfactory system. It is a right that persons 18 years or older have, buying and smoking tobacco is.
I would like to further agree with previous notions that there should be a compromise, if you will, between the opposing sides of a tobacco-free campus. A tobacco-free campus with the exception of a few areas designated for smoking would be much more beneficial for both parties. Those who smoked could still enjoy their “coffee breaks” while respecting others’ clean air all the while those against smoking could point and stare from a distance, breathing all the fresh air they wish.
Austin North:
Banning smoking in the breezy outdoors serves no “health” purposeeven if it was unhealthy to begin with. It’s done for smoker harassment.
As for your claim that cigarettes have no benefit, see previous posts.
You’re an occasional smoker who can’t bear the scent of smoke, huh? You sound like a guy who desperately wants to be politically correct but can’t figure out what it entails. If you learned to mind your own business, you’d be a lot happier and so would smokers.
‘
The ban’s purpose, I think, is to influence public opinion against smoking less than it is to actually keep people from smoking. If a law goes up, most people automatically assume that the law is right. Of course people will still smoke and of course no one’s going to arrest them, but the ban will increase the stigma associated with smoking.
Heather, do you think that a stigma should be associated with obese people?
People die everyday due to the fact that they are not eating right. Should they be banned from being able to go to any of the less than healthy dining options on campus, or even be asked to no longer eat three burritos from Taco Mayo?