WANTED: A SLICK, sleazy attorney that specializes in the defense of society̢۪s lowest life form. Apparently, I need one. I am a smoker.
That̢۪s right, I admitted it.
And some of you would admit it too, except for the fear of being quarantined to the remote corners of the campus to the dreaded approved smoking areas, where the saints pass by silently scolding us sinners as we partake in our dirty deed.
The topic appears in the paper almost as often as the parking issue.
What is to be done with these smokers and how does everyone feel about it?
My recent shame-inspired anger on the issue comes from the Campus Speak section of the opinion page that was published in The Collegian on Sept. 7 wherein a reporter asked the campus at large how they felt about smoking on campus.
Shockingly enough, the eight students polled didn̢۪t feel much.
But I did. The smokers out there did too.
And I may not be an attorney, but I will definitely defend myself and those I have seen hiding behind trees desperately trying to not be seen smoking before that two-hour chemistry lab.
I am not a criminal. I am not a disease. I̢۪m not interested in blowing smoke in your face or flicking the remains of my cigarette all over your world.
I am not luring your children into a life of corruption and I am not a burden to society.
I am smart. I am functioning. I̢۪m self-sufficient. My parents are proud of me. And the last time I checked, the money that I have worked so hard for to pay my tuition is just as green as a non-smoker̢۪s.
So why do I feel singled out and less of a student and human being because I have a nasty habit?
Let me make it clear that I am in no way advocating smoking.
In fact, if you have never smoked a cigarette, do yourself a favor and keep it that way.
Smoking is not cool. It’s not glamorous. It is an immense waste of money and time. Time meaning all the years later in life you may not be around for — the years you force yourself not to think about when you inhale.
My point is this: according to the University of Michigan’s Student Life Survey in 2004, 30 percent of the students were smokers — rates that were lower than the national average. Health officials at the university also explained that cigarettes were psychologically addictive and habitual and a lot more complicated than people understood.
I don̢۪t think our university understands that and would rather deal with smokers by restricting them to areas where they don̢۪t have to deal with them.
Maybe I am just old, but I remember a time when you could still smoke in restaurants. Now, we can̢۪t even smoke outside. Maybe someday we won̢۪t even be allowed to smoke in the country.
Choice. Personal freedom. Unalienable rights. Respecting other̢۪s choices, freedoms and rights.
Ah heck, who needs democracy anyway?
Megan O̢۪Laughlin is a senior at Fresno State majoring in Mass Communication and Journalism with an option in print journalism. Though she has an account, Megan tells us she hasn̢۪t checked her Myspace in a really long time. We believe her.
gm • Sep 25, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Mary,
Apparently you did not read my earlier posts completely or simply got angry because I suggested that all of us take actions that negatively impact the health of those around us. So, for the third time, let me state that limitations on where and when people may smoke is not only reasonable and justified but also is, in light of the health consequenses involved, a morally responsible position. That should be clear enough that you will not state again that I advocate doing nothing about second hand smoke. My point, again, is something that you at least seem to concede in the midst of your post, “everything in moderation.” I don’t believe that banning smoking from the entire campus or passing laws that don’t simply limit smoking but make it illegal in outdoor public spaces such as parks and beaches, is a reasonable position. These laws are being passed and perhaps you think they are a great idea, but I beg to differ.
I brought up other issues to point out that it is easy to vilify or even legislate against the actions of others, but applying the same standards to ones own behaviors that negatively impact others, becomes a somewhat more troublesome point. Shining a light on our hypocrisy on these issues in no way suggests that we do nothing about smoking. Quite the contrary, I would argue that applying a similar standard to these types of issues would encourage us to address a host of problems, in a reasonable and measured way. I guess the problem with that is that we all would have to accept some limitations on our behaviors and accept culpability in making things better for those around us. Easier to narrow our focus to the vices of others and see our own as unrelated? Who is advocating doing nothing now?
I clearly did not state or imply that you (or I for that matter) are being inconsiderate for not smoking. Nor did I even hint that you should apologize for breathing around a smoker, anymore than a cyclist should apologize for breathing your exhaust. What I was trying to get across is that smokers should not be treated as some type of pariah. Making them stand in the rain to smoke is not being considerate. Walking by places where they are allowed to smoke and complaining that you shouldn’t have to be exposed to it, is not considerate either. Once again, this does not mean that I think smokers should not worry about lighting up around others. We have all experienced the rude smoker. But I also have seen the obnoxious non-smoker who sits in a smoking area and then starts complaining about the smoke. Consideration is a two-way street that brings us back to that moderation standard and leads to all of us taking steps to diminsh the many things that we do to hurt others.
gm • Sep 25, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Mary,
Apparently you did not read my earlier posts completely or simply got angry because I suggested that all of us take actions that negatively impact the health of those around us. So, for the third time, let me state that limitations on where and when people may smoke is not only reasonable and justified but also is, in light of the health consequenses involved, a morally responsible position. That should be clear enough that you will not state again that I advocate doing nothing about second hand smoke. My point, again, is something that you at least seem to concede in the midst of your post, “everything in moderation.” I don’t believe that banning smoking from the entire campus or passing laws that don’t simply limit smoking but make it illegal in outdoor public spaces such as parks and beaches, is a reasonable position. These laws are being passed and perhaps you think they are a great idea, but I beg to differ.
I brought up other issues to point out that it is easy to vilify or even legislate against the actions of others, but applying the same standards to ones own behaviors that negatively impact others, becomes a somewhat more troublesome point. Shining a light on our hypocrisy on these issues in no way suggests that we do nothing about smoking. Quite the contrary, I would argue that applying a similar standard to these types of issues would encourage us to address a host of problems, in a reasonable and measured way. I guess the problem with that is that we all would have to accept some limitations on our behaviors and accept culpability in making things better for those around us. Easier to narrow our focus to the vices of others and see our own as unrelated? Who is advocating doing nothing now?
I clearly did not state or imply that you (or I for that matter) are being inconsiderate for not smoking. Nor did I even hint that you should apologize for breathing around a smoker, anymore than a cyclist should apologize for breathing your exhaust. What I was trying to get across is that smokers should not be treated as some type of pariah. Making them stand in the rain to smoke is not being considerate. Walking by places where they are allowed to smoke and complaining that you shouldn’t have to be exposed to it, is not considerate either. Once again, this does not mean that I think smokers should not worry about lighting up around others. We have all experienced the rude smoker. But I also have seen the obnoxious non-smoker who sits in a smoking area and then starts complaining about the smoke. Consideration is a two-way street that brings us back to that moderation standard and leads to all of us taking steps to diminsh the many things that we do to hurt others.
Mary • Sep 24, 2007 at 11:15 am
GM,
It would be rediculous to say that any person could be protected from something harfmul 100% of the time. We both know that. Having said that, I think it is important to take the steps that we can to make a crappy situation better. That, in general can be applied to anything. Yes, it can be applied to cars polluting the air or fast-food polluting our bodies – which by the way have nothing to do with cigarettes. So do you propose that we give up on any possible improvements just because we can’t make a complete, 100% change for the better or provide complete protection? No, of course not. Everything in moderation, if that is the only reasonable option. And as far as non-smokers being considerate, I don’t see how my choice to not smoke could be seen as inconsiderate to others. As far as other personal choices, I don’t believe they were the point of the article. So don’t expect me to apologize next time I walk by a smoker for just breathing.
Mary • Sep 24, 2007 at 6:15 pm
GM,
It would be rediculous to say that any person could be protected from something harfmul 100% of the time. We both know that. Having said that, I think it is important to take the steps that we can to make a crappy situation better. That, in general can be applied to anything. Yes, it can be applied to cars polluting the air or fast-food polluting our bodies – which by the way have nothing to do with cigarettes. So do you propose that we give up on any possible improvements just because we can’t make a complete, 100% change for the better or provide complete protection? No, of course not. Everything in moderation, if that is the only reasonable option. And as far as non-smokers being considerate, I don’t see how my choice to not smoke could be seen as inconsiderate to others. As far as other personal choices, I don’t believe they were the point of the article. So don’t expect me to apologize next time I walk by a smoker for just breathing.
gm • Sep 24, 2007 at 10:26 am
Benjamin and Mary,
The point is not whether there should be restrictions on where and when smoking is allowed but where the line should be drawn. You both seem to be arguing that we should all be 100% protected from exposure to smokers in light of the health consequences. Fine. If that is the standard then it should be applied to other areas that can impact the health of those around us. If you drove to campus today then you had a direct and negative impact on the health of those around you, particularly those with asthma. No cars around people that don’t want to breathe that air.I would venture a guess that alcohol, despite restrictions on where when and by whom it may be consumed, is responsible for more 2nd hand deaths than smokers. Return to prohibition. Other life choices made by other people can have a very negative consequence for me, if less directly. Stuffing your face with junk and fast food? The health problems associated with obesity and the American diet, i.e. rampant heart disease, diabetes etc…, are helping to overwhelm the health care system. In turn, those of us who make healthier choices find our care limited and more costly (as do smokers). My point is that peoples “arm waving” touches others all the time in negative ways, but smoking is something other people do, making it easier to be against. Mary, you are right. People should be considerate when it comes to smoking, but that also applies to non-smokers as well.
gm • Sep 24, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Benjamin and Mary,
The point is not whether there should be restrictions on where and when smoking is allowed but where the line should be drawn. You both seem to be arguing that we should all be 100% protected from exposure to smokers in light of the health consequences. Fine. If that is the standard then it should be applied to other areas that can impact the health of those around us. If you drove to campus today then you had a direct and negative impact on the health of those around you, particularly those with asthma. No cars around people that don’t want to breathe that air.I would venture a guess that alcohol, despite restrictions on where when and by whom it may be consumed, is responsible for more 2nd hand deaths than smokers. Return to prohibition. Other life choices made by other people can have a very negative consequence for me, if less directly. Stuffing your face with junk and fast food? The health problems associated with obesity and the American diet, i.e. rampant heart disease, diabetes etc…, are helping to overwhelm the health care system. In turn, those of us who make healthier choices find our care limited and more costly (as do smokers). My point is that peoples “arm waving” touches others all the time in negative ways, but smoking is something other people do, making it easier to be against. Mary, you are right. People should be considerate when it comes to smoking, but that also applies to non-smokers as well.
Mary • Sep 23, 2007 at 4:42 pm
I have the right to breathe and not worry about the toxic effects of that necessary action. Although every person has the right to decide for themsleves to smoke, my health should not have to deal with the consequences of their decision. Smokers made their choice and must deal with the fact that it is not only unhealthy, but not socially pleasing. I don’t look down on smokers, but I do wish that they would be inherently considerate and smoke in places where it doesn’t affect others directly.
Mary • Sep 23, 2007 at 11:42 pm
I have the right to breathe and not worry about the toxic effects of that necessary action. Although every person has the right to decide for themsleves to smoke, my health should not have to deal with the consequences of their decision. Smokers made their choice and must deal with the fact that it is not only unhealthy, but not socially pleasing. I don’t look down on smokers, but I do wish that they would be inherently considerate and smoke in places where it doesn’t affect others directly.
Benjamin Baxter • Sep 21, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Freedom of choice is the freedom to swing your arms wildly in front of you, if you want. That freedom ends where somebody else begins.
Can this be applied to smoking, considering the negative health effects?
Benjamin Baxter • Sep 22, 2007 at 12:28 am
Freedom of choice is the freedom to swing your arms wildly in front of you, if you want. That freedom ends where somebody else begins.
Can this be applied to smoking, considering the negative health effects?
gm • Sep 21, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Mike,
I agree with you on the effects of 2nd hand smoke and the need to protect people from the negative consequences of other peoples decisions. As a non-smoker, I’m quite happy that I am not trapped in a classroom or workplace filled with smoke. That said, I also feel the pendulum has swung too far. Bashing smokers has become the chic thing to do. People are proving how socially aware they are by advocating for increasingly punitive restrictions on smokers. Smoking is being banned outside at parks and beaches. The irony of people driving around in their cars and SUV’s arguing that people shouldn’t even be allowed to smoke outside appears to be lost on some.
Now we have people arguing that smoking in the home is child abuse. But why stop there? Shouldn’t people who have obese children and take them out to fast food be charged with child abuse in light of the huge health consequences? Study after study has shown that too much television or video game playing is responsible for a host of societal ills. Aren’t these children victims of parental irresponsibility in our brave new world?
My point is not that smoking should be allowed anywhere and everywhere. Educating the public and implementing reasonable restrictions on smokers to diminsh the health risks posed to the rest of us by 2nd hand smoke is necessary and justified. Arguing that we should all be 100% protected from any unwanted contact with smokers at all times and places is unreasonable and would be considered an absurd approach if applied to the many other things that the rest of us do that have negative health consequences on those around us.
gm • Sep 21, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Mike,
I agree with you on the effects of 2nd hand smoke and the need to protect people from the negative consequences of other peoples decisions. As a non-smoker, I’m quite happy that I am not trapped in a classroom or workplace filled with smoke. That said, I also feel the pendulum has swung too far. Bashing smokers has become the chic thing to do. People are proving how socially aware they are by advocating for increasingly punitive restrictions on smokers. Smoking is being banned outside at parks and beaches. The irony of people driving around in their cars and SUV’s arguing that people shouldn’t even be allowed to smoke outside appears to be lost on some.
Now we have people arguing that smoking in the home is child abuse. But why stop there? Shouldn’t people who have obese children and take them out to fast food be charged with child abuse in light of the huge health consequences? Study after study has shown that too much television or video game playing is responsible for a host of societal ills. Aren’t these children victims of parental irresponsibility in our brave new world?
My point is not that smoking should be allowed anywhere and everywhere. Educating the public and implementing reasonable restrictions on smokers to diminsh the health risks posed to the rest of us by 2nd hand smoke is necessary and justified. Arguing that we should all be 100% protected from any unwanted contact with smokers at all times and places is unreasonable and would be considered an absurd approach if applied to the many other things that the rest of us do that have negative health consequences on those around us.
Xango Vulviis • Sep 21, 2007 at 12:15 pm
PS: University of Michigan sucks more than Campus Pointe
Xango Vulviis • Sep 21, 2007 at 7:15 pm
PS: University of Michigan sucks more than Campus Pointe
Xango Vulviis • Sep 21, 2007 at 12:14 pm
The sad thing is that many parents still smoke in homes with young children. In my book, this is a clear form of child abuse.
I have NO sympathy for smokers. This is a life choice and not part of who you are as a person.
As a society, we are quick to castigate gay couples that want to adopt——-we seldom apply the same “harm” logic to straight smoking couple who endanger their children on a 24-7 basis.
Xango Vulviis • Sep 21, 2007 at 7:14 pm
The sad thing is that many parents still smoke in homes with young children. In my book, this is a clear form of child abuse.
I have NO sympathy for smokers. This is a life choice and not part of who you are as a person.
As a society, we are quick to castigate gay couples that want to adopt——-we seldom apply the same “harm” logic to straight smoking couple who endanger their children on a 24-7 basis.
Mike Foster • Sep 21, 2007 at 9:54 am
Back in those days you remember, Smoking was allowed because no one knew its harmful effects and the powerful lobbying system was behind it.
Today, things have changed a lot, and those laws that make it so smokers can only light up in certain areas are to protect non smokers who can be harmed by just being near other smokers. It is not to shove you away where the University does not have to deal with you.
Also, its not really the University’s job to try and understand how complicated cigarettes are and how addictive they are. There are plenty of established entities that help people quit smoking (such as the government sponsored http://www.smokefree.gov/ or others like http://www.quitnet.com/sbir/Invitation.aspx and the appopriately titled http://www.quitsmoking.com/), and as you have said, its the person’s choice to quit or not.
The figure you quoted, was that only for Michigan University? or was it for all colleges across the nation?
Sorry but this article will only find sympathy from other smokers.
Mike Foster • Sep 21, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Back in those days you remember, Smoking was allowed because no one knew its harmful effects and the powerful lobbying system was behind it.
Today, things have changed a lot, and those laws that make it so smokers can only light up in certain areas are to protect non smokers who can be harmed by just being near other smokers. It is not to shove you away where the University does not have to deal with you.
Also, its not really the University’s job to try and understand how complicated cigarettes are and how addictive they are. There are plenty of established entities that help people quit smoking (such as the government sponsored http://www.smokefree.gov/ or others like http://www.quitnet.com/sbir/Invitation.aspx and the appopriately titled http://www.quitsmoking.com/), and as you have said, its the person’s choice to quit or not.
The figure you quoted, was that only for Michigan University? or was it for all colleges across the nation?
Sorry but this article will only find sympathy from other smokers.