Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Smoking ban necessary for the university’s wellbeing

Published: Monday, October 8, 2012

Updated: Monday, October 8, 2012 21:10

 

So I hear the university is thinking about outlawing smoking on campus, to which I say: it’s about time. Smoking is gross, and it will be nice to be able to walk down The Green without getting stuck behind someone puffing away, releasing toxins into the air.

I hate accidentally inhaling a lungful of cigarette smoke. It’s disgusting and completely unhealthy. Fortunately, the majority of college students here do not smoke and are aware of how deadly it can be. I’ve been taught the dangers of smoking since at least fourth grade, and I think just about everyone now knows that smoking can kill you. This isn’t the ‘50s anymore. It’s a fact that smoking is deadly, not just to the smoker but to anyone who inhales second-hand smoke as well.

And yet, people continue to use cigarettes. To them, I have only one thing to say: why? Aren’t you worried about the fact that you are literally paying to damage your health, as well as the health of everyone around you? Smoking rots your teeth and can give you cancer. I don’t think this is news to anyone. 

Gro Harlem Brundtland, a Norweigian politician, once said, “A cigarette is the only consumer product which when used as directed kills its consumer.” This is true. So why do people smoke? I have no idea, but it’s a shame.

I urge people to put down the cigarettes and to think about their health. Aside from the health risks, cigarette smoking is a very expensive habit, especially in Delaware. A 2008 Forbes study found that Delawareans smoke more than in any other state, with each smoker spending about $1,000 per year. So clearly, it’s a bigger issue here than in other places.

I fully support the Student Government Association working with the university to propose a smoking ban on campus. The odor is foul and leaves me choking. I try to hold my breath when I pass by a smoker. Of course, I still end up breathing in smoke at times.

A smoking ban would allow people like me to breathe in cleaner air, to not have to worry when walking past a smoker. You might protest this ban by saying, “But we have limits already on smoking around buildings.” Well, I think it’s pretty clear that no one follows them. People smoke right outside buildings without a care.

What about the current smokers who would be affected by the ban? The university could establish one or two “smoking zones” on campus where smokers could go to get their nicotine fix. These “smoking zones” should be placed in out-of-the-way places, such as areas that aren’t frequently trafficked. In addition, people can always smoke on Main Street or somewhere else off university property. I understand that people cannot just quit at the drop of a hat, hence my proposed designated areas.

Would this be inconvenient for some people? Probably. But isn’t that better than unintentionally punishing the majority of people who don’t smoke and that are potentially grossed out by it? Plus, what about asthmatics or smoke-sensitive individuals who really can’t breathe in smoke? Wouldn’t they be better off with a smoke-free campus? 

I think that campus police should enforce the policy by giving tickets (or at least warnings) to violators. They should not be big fines, but a monetary punishment of any sort would discourage some people. 

Smoking is a choice. Just because people choose to smoke, to poison their bodies and the air around them, it doesn’t mean they should get any special privileges. If the university makes it illegal to smoke on campus, perhaps some people will quit. Yes, some will try to break the rule, as there are always lawbreakers, but others will benefit. This includes some smokers who decide to drop habit because of the cigarette-ban making smoking inconvenient for them.

This opinion may seem harsh and it will not be popular among smokers. But I firmly support a smoke-free university. It’s healthier and simply more pleasant.

A number of colleges have already banned smoking on their campus—Towson, Indiana, Florida and every university in Iowa, to name a few. Delaware should be next.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

5 comments

Audrea Farley
Mon Oct 15 2012 19:07
I think everyone should remember this is an editorial, reflecting the views of one person. Matt's speaking for himself, an opinion that I agree with. They don't allow students to sit on their dorm steps and drink alcohol, so why should they be allowed to walk around smoking. Smoking is still a lung irritant and bothersome to many. Whenever I see people smoking it makes me sad, it's a constant reminder that people die of cancer caused by nicotine all the time. I think you guys shouldn't take this article so personally, even if you say there are minimal health problems correlating with secondhand smoke, in my opinion, it is still unpleasant and upsetting. I also hope that if you smoke you will quit for the concern of your own health. Thank you.
Scott Ewing
Wed Oct 10 2012 19:07
I deal with this often at my (single) student rental. No, you can not tell people to not smoke. No you can not ask them to move to the kitchen, or the basement, or the porch, etc. No, you may not attact a person who is smokng with 'your opinion'. On the other hand, on my residential rentals, out of the hundreds of potential renters I'm met with, exactly one has objected to my 'smoking allowed' policy. My advice Matt is to chill out. the real world awaits and you will have lots bigger things to concern yourself with than someone else smoking.
Anonymous
Wed Oct 10 2012 09:56
But it still smells disgusting and having a cloud of smoke in your face is pretty obnoxious
Michael J. McFadden
Wed Oct 10 2012 08:23
I should add one point: The real risk is probably even less. Remember that the EPA figures are based upon a study that was unable to reach the minimum standard of ordinary statistical significance of 95%. In order to claim its finding they had to "move the goalposts" to a 90% standard.

Try doing that in a research project at UD and you'd probably flunk the course.

- MJM

Michael J. McFadden
Wed Oct 10 2012 08:17
Matt, it's very sad. You've had your mind fiddled with since you were a young child and you have absolutely no idea that it's happened. You say that you "worry when walking past a smoker." You seem to think that's a rational statement. In reality it's sort of like saying "I worry when I see a fly because I might accidentally inhale it and germs from it would get into my lungs and cause a fatal lung infection." Could such a thing happen? Probably. Are the chances of it happening large enough that any normal person should "worry" when they see a fly? If someone actually had that worry, and worried about it enough to talk about it, to leave rooms, or to change jobs because they saw a fly, I think we could agree that that person strongly needed psychological help. But in terms of an actual threat for you to worry about, passing by a smoker outdoors is probably a far smaller threat in reality -- but you are forced to spend emotional energy worrying about it because of what's been done to you.

I was discussing outdoor smoking on another campus board a few months ago (It's a "big thing" nowadays, fueled by the money and organization of "SmokeFree Campuses" and by the kids who've had "the dangers of smoke" drilled into their brains since their teletubby days.) and I tried applying the EPA Report findings, normally thought to be the "gold standard" of the antismoking bible, to outdoor campus smoke exposures. Know what I found? Using the EPA figures and correcting for dilution and duration of exposure, and assuming that a student was forced to walk through "clouds of smokers" at doorways TEN TIMES A DAY, every single day, it would take, on the average, TWENTY-FIVE MILLION STUDENT-YEARS to get a single case of lung cancer.

Seriously. And walking through one such cloud per day it would take 250,000,000 years. And the thing you say you "worry about" -- "walking past a smoker" -- is something you would have to do two and a half BILLION times (2,500,000,000 times) to have a fifty percent chance of getting lung cancer from the deadly experience. I've heard of perpetual grad students, but that's stretching it a bit, eh?

Do you see why I'm claiming that your brain has been played with? Does that make you angry at all? It should. You've been conditioned like a rat -- maybe for "good purposes," but that's not a sufficient excuse. Google "V.Gen5H" and read "The Health Arguments" link near the top there. It's a short, printable, quick-reading outreach tool I developed several years ago titled "The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans." It's openly one-sided, but its facts are accurate, their presentation is honest, and the studies are referenced. If you have any specific, substantive criticisms of anything in it, please feel free to share them here. I promise I won't mind, and I'll try to stop back to respond.

Michael J. McFadden,
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"





log out