Secondhand smoke can be worse than inhaling from a cigarette. Enforcing a smoking ban would lessen the effects of secondhand smoke. | Photo by Leah Beilhart/The Minaret
Walking to an early morning class on the UT campus can be a healthy, soothing breath of crispy fresh air. That is, until the air is spoiled by a thick cloud of tobacco smoke.
“It is the philosophy of The University of Tampa to provide an environment that offers the opportunity and resources to optimize the personal health and well-being of the University community.” This is stated in the school’s Student Handbook under the smoke free policy section. However, the UT community is not only inside of the residence halls, it is everywhere on campus.
People have the right to decide if they want to smoke cigarettes. They know the harm they are causing their bodies and are capable of making that independent choice. But if they choose to smoke on campus, they are not only damaging themselves. Secondhand smoke can be worse than inhaling from the cigarette because the smoke that burns off the end of the cigarette contains more harmful substances than the smoke inhaled by the smoker, stated on the Cleveland Clinic website regarding passive smoking. It is not fair for nonsmokers to have to walk through a puff of smoke just to get inside of a building, or to stay on their chosen path.
Students come to college with an open mind to learn new things, become independent and find out who they are. If they are exposed to cigarettes on school grounds, it increases their chances of also becoming a smoker.
Having a smoke-free campus would also promote a green, clean environment. It would decrease the amount of litter from students carelessly throwing their cigarettes on the ground, and would cut back on pollution. Every little bit counts!
It is generally believed that telling a young adult that they cannot do something will only make them want to do it more. But if campus security enforces smoke-free rules, students will be forced to walk all the way off campus to have their cigarette. It is not as convenient to take a cigarette break during a class period and forced to take a walk instead of smoking right outside of the building.
On the Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights website, it states that as of October 5, 2012, at least 826 college campuses in the United States have 100 percent banned smoking in indoor and outdoor areas across the entire campus. This number has continued to increase over the past few years, leaving the remaining colleges including the University of Tampa to hopefully soon adapt.
Kirby Jay can be reached at Kirby.Jay@spartans.ut.edu
Loading ...
Hi there! Quick question that’s completely off topic. Do you know how to make your site mobile friendly? My weblog looks weird when viewing from my apple iphone. I’m trying to find a template or
plugin that might be able to fix this problem. If you have any recommendations, please share.
Many thanks!
So is UT willing to provide an online venue for a high profile debate of the campus ban issue? Or do they simply prefer to make a token nod at student rights and then just proceed with a ban while keeping all discussion muzzled as tightly as possible. “Nothing to see here folks. All over. Might as well just move along…”
Samantha, no response to my comments on your four points below?
- MJM
Samantha, I’d like to apologize for the suggestion that you (or anyone here) might prefer to keep a more in-depth discussion of the issue away from UT’s students. I was coming out of a discussion elsewhere in which people were generating a bit more heat than light.
I’d be quite happy to participate in such a discussion online, particularly if it were well-publicized enough for a good number of students to be aware of it.
I also wanted to respond to Kirby Jay’s note at the end of the opening article. ANR now claims 826 campuses have banned open-air smoking, but I’d like to make a few points about that claim:
1) The source is certainly not neutral: I’d place their credibility in the area roughly on a par with Philip Morris or RJR.
2) Examining letters to editors on various campuses with bans can be enlightening: you might be surprised at how many such letters complain about the bans being ignored.
3) While I’m not sure how common (or how well-noted) it is on college campuses, but I have seen several notes about hospital campuses that, while “officially” still having a ban, have actually set up “designated smoking areas” or shelters. I would strongly doubt they have been removed from the 826 roll-call since inflating that number is vital in order to support the “bandwagon argument.”
4) And finally, Jay’s use of the bandwagon argument itself right at the very end of the final sentence in the article: “leaving the remaining colleges including the University of Tampa to hopefully soon adapt.” I believe there are roughly 5,000 campuses in the U.S. That would put UT solidly in the over 80% of campuses that have resisted these bans, despite the spending of Smoke Free Campuses, and despite the new blackmail threats to cut off government funding for campuses that refuse to knuckle under. The “bandwagon” is still rather small, although if you look up some college news articles from a couple of years ago you’ll find the argument was still being used even when there were only 300 with bans in place.
- MJM
Thank you for a nice response Samantha, and apologies for the double posting below it — two previous posts on the board seemed to be delayed for several days due to links so that’s why I tried the variant.
In terms of your position, first I’d like to point out that there IS a difference in the two sides: I accepted the best evidence offered by pro-banners, the CDC page, and point by point showed how they distorted and lied a half dozen times in just a few paragraphs. In return I offered 20 pages of vulnerable writing for similar specific criticisms and got none. The Free Choice side has evidence it is willing to present and defend while criticizing the evidence of the Pro Ban side. The Pro Ban side not only refuses to defend the evidence it offers, but has no specific, substantive criticisms of the points made on the Free Choice side. I’d say that’s a very significant qualitative difference in evidence.
In terms of your four points:
1) “smoking harms all parties” Samantha, you know that that’s not true in all situations so why state it as though it is. If I’m smoking in a lounge area with a negative air pressure capturing my “deadly fumes” and expelling them through the roof, what “parties” am I harming? If I smoke 10 feet away from you outdoors, what evidence can you show that there is any real harm done to you? I made the offer earlier I believe: find and cite just a few (of all the supposed mountains) of studies that you believe show such harm and defend them. There are none.
2) “it can be avoided for those who wish it” – Agreed.
3) “smoking zones will not stop smokers from enjoying their time” Really? Funny thing about that: I’ve occasionally tried asking Antismokers to back up their claim of “It’s no big thing, just step outside around the back.” by joining me out by the dumpsters on a mid-February evening during a band break to enjoy the crisp air and sparkling sleet… somehow they didn’t feel they’d be “enjoying their time” out there…
4) “there is a RIGHT to life not a RIGHT to smoke in The Constitution” Quite true, but there’s also no RIGHT to drive, to barbecue, to grow poppies or roses, to have a chlorine gas emitting swimming pool within 100 feet of your neighbor’s yard, or any of a number of other things. My smoking does not automatically abrogate your right to life any more than my driving does. There is sound evidence that driving 80 mph on the sidewalks presents an unreasonable danger to your right to life, so it is forbidden. There is no such evidence (at least none anyone has been able to find and present) that smoking several feet away outdoors or in a well-designed and ventilated indoor area presents any such threat.
I share with you the hope that the debate has benefited readers — but how many of the students affected by the regulations have seen this debate? Would you like to move it to a higher profile so that they *ALL* can benefit from it? Or would you like to keep it hidden in this little corner?
- MJM
Hi Michael,
I have no doubt that your no budget research is hard earned and full of a lot of information on smoking ban propaganda. We can continue to spout out fact after fact and have it criticized by both sides, but it seems a moot point presently as both sides have their own evidence. However, the facts all boil down to a few simple points
* smoking harms all parties
* it can be avoided for those who wish it
* smoking zones will not stop smokers from enjoying their time
* there is a RIGHT to life not a RIGHT to smoke in The Constitution
Therefore it was proposed that smoking zones be implemented as a compromise in this ever controversial issue. This will be my last post because if you cannot settle an agreement on the four facts stated then it is pointless to debate the issue. I wish you all who have posted that this issue will be laid to rest and that the school will do what is needed. I also would like to thank you for your honest postings and hope this debate has benefited you in some way.
Sorry: just remembered there can be a long delay for moderated posts with html links. Let me rephrase my last post:
===
No further thoughts? Did you miss my invitation from last week below:
Try reading my “Lies Behind the Smoking Bans” by Googling “V.Gen5H” just like that, in quotes.
and feel perfectly free to offer any specific, substantive criticisms you might have of the material in it. I promise I won’t mind, and I’ll try to stop back to respond.
==
I was able to find about a half dozen specific substantive criticisms of just the first page of the CDC offering, and that was something put together by high-paid professionals working within a multi-billion dollar budget. My own “Lies…” is over forty times as long (22 pages, although in big print) and was put together with NO budget. You ought to be easily able to find over a hundred such specific criticisms to hit it with….
Unless of course, there truly *IS* something severely wrong with the smoking ban campaign….
– MJM
No further thoughts? Did you see my invitation below:
==
Try reading my “Lies Behind the Smoking Bans” at
‘
http://Tinyurl.com/SmokingBanLies
‘
and feel perfectly free to offer any specific, substantive criticisms you might have of the material in it. I promise I won’t mind, and I’ll try to stop back to respond.
==
I was able to find about a half dozen specific substantive criticisms of just the first page of the CDC offering, and that was something put together by high-paid professionals working within a multi-billion dollar budget. My own “Lies…” is over forty times as long (22 pages, although in big print) and was put together with NO budget. You ought to be easily able to find over a hundred such specific criticisms to hit it with….
Unless of course, there truly *IS* something severely wrong with the smoking ban campaign….
- MJM
Eileen, as a UT parent, if you had a daughter who smoked would you prefer that she be told she had to go off campus alone into possibly unsafe neighborhoods at night to do so? And refused security protection by the school because “The whole intent of the ban is to get people to stop smoking.” That’s what the security forces declared at the University of Montana when asked about escorting student smokers.
An observation about Audrey’s point: people DO have different sensitivities to different things. A student who is highly allergic to grass pollen (a far more common allergy than to tobacco smoke in medical terms) so SHOULD all colleges be forced to cover their entire campuses in concrete? Should all restaurants be banned from having flowers on their tables? Asthmatic attacks from these exposures CAN kill people, so aren’t you being selfish if you say you prefer college lawns and rosebushes?
Amy, there are also people who are extremely sun-sensitive, so sun-sensitive that sunscreen and awnings aren’t enough. Should they insist that all outdoor events be held at night?
Johanna, you quote extensively from the CDC and assume it’s all correct because of the source. Try looking up those 70 carcinogens they claim: you’ll find that about 60 of them have only been found to cause cancer in things like mutant hairless mice… and then only at ENORMOUSLY greater levels (as in a million or so times greater) than the concentrations of smoke you’d be getting exposed to on campus.
Look at their statement: “Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their lung cancer risk by 20–30%.” and notice how they DON’T tell you that they’re only referring to a constant forty years of daily concentrated indoor exposure and they ALSO don’t tell you that even then the “excess risk” is claimed to be only one in a thousand.
Look at their statement, “Secondhand smoke exposure causes an estimated 3,400 lung cancer deaths annually” and then go back to the EPA Report in 1992 and you’ll find the SAME number claimed… even though smoke exposure by nonsmokers has gone down by 80 or 90% in the last 20 years. Does that tell you anything about how accurate the claim is?
Look at their statement, “There is no risk-free level of contact with secondhand smoke” and then think about why they didn’t add “or exposure to sunshine” to give it some perspective. Do you think that maybe it was because they wanted to communicate a lie, with the lie being that you should actually WORRY about casual exposures to smoke? If you think it’s not a lie, then let me ask you: do you think it would be right to frighten people into worrying about casual exposures to sunshine?
Finally, in terms of asthmatic anxiety attacks: who is actually at fault? The smokers, who smoked for centuries without causing such things? Or the Antismokers who have created the fear and stress that brings them about?
- MJM
As a UT parent, I am all for a Smoke Free campus. My mom died from emphysema – she continued to spoke even while on oxygen so you can’t tell me it isn’t addictive. Get with the program UT! Smoke Free NOW!
opps sorry i forgot to put the link
here it is
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/
I am a smoker and I can clearly see that this is quite the battle here. As a smoker, I realized that where I smoked did affect others when my friend went into a serious allergy attack and almost died before my eyes. Luckily I was able to see that she was trying to reach for her EPI pen in her bag and was able to clumsily administer it. Since then i tried to make sure that i smoked away from crowded areas and was mindful that yeah even though i dont like to admit it, i smelt like cigarette smoke right after i had one. So i can definitely see where the non smokers are going with their arguments. However, as a smoker, it would be inconvenient and offensive to be told all smokers have to gather in certain zones to smoke as if we were being put on show. Me, personally, I think I would get over this because if it can help people like my friend than im all for saving their lives. I know its not just people with allergies that are affected, you have people with asthma and risks of cancer and heart disease. So I dont want to be responsible for killing someone when i could have prevented it.
Micheal, as to your argument of taking a picture of smoke staying in the air, thats kind of impossible as it is a gas. I have collected some evidence from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention that is an international entity that strives to save lives and inform people of the risks pertaining to health and other such necessities that are exposed.
“Secondhand smoke is a mixture of gases and fine particles that includes—
* Smoke from a burning cigarette, cigar, or pipe tip,
* Smoke that has been exhaled or breathed out by the person or people smoking, and
* More than 7,000 chemicals, including hundreds that are toxic and about 70 that can cause cancer.”
From this it is not hard to see why there are not a lot of people out there with lung cancer, as only 1 percent of the cigarette’s chemical nature causes it.
“Heart Disease
* For nonsmokers, breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the cardiovascular system that can increase the risk for heart attack. People who already have heart disease are at especially high risk.
* Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their heart disease risk by 25–30%.
* Secondhand smoke exposure causes an estimated 46,000 heart disease deaths annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States.”
“Lung Cancer
* Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their lung cancer risk by 20–30%.
* Secondhand smoke exposure causes an estimated 3,400 lung cancer deaths annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States.”
“There is no risk-free level of contact with secondhand smoke; even brief exposure can be harmful to health.”
“The decrease in exposure to secondhand smoke over the last 20 years is due to the growing number of laws that ban smoking in workplaces and public places, the increase in the number of households with smoke-free home rules, and the decreases in adult and youth smoking rates.”
“Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings does not eliminate secondhand smoke exposure.”
This statement kind of surprised me because it thought that smoking indoors wasnt too bad, but i guess it really is. Since my friend’s attack I decided that I was going to try to quit smoking so that it wouldn’t happen again. The Wellness Center actually gives Cessation Classes to help you quit. I have relapsed a few times when i got the urge, but i do smoke less than I did. I am currently going on to 47 days smoke free after my binge in summer. I am hoping that more people take the initiative to quit smoking, but if not i understand just how hard it is and i don’t blame them. I just hope that they take into consideration of those around them when they are smoking. I hope this clears up a few things between the two sides here. Just remember when you choose to smoke its your choice and no one should take that away from you, but you really should be mindful.
Samantha, unwilling to compromise?? As I said, smokers have compromised themselves not just out of the indoors but out of wide open air and now their homes! All for a scientific fraud founded in a crusade that does not really seek to “protect non-smokers from smokers” but to use the social pressure they’ve harnessed with that lie to reach their smokER-free society. Bans are intended to frustrate smokers into quitting when there’s no place to light up. To quote Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights (ANR): “Legislation is not our goal. Ending… tobacco use is. Legislation is merely a tool to help us achieve our goal.”
And so, in their unrelenting crusade they’ve convinced members of the public such as yourself of such ridiculous beliefs such as “secondhand smoke is worse than smoking.” It defies logic!… never mind science (which it defies that too no matter the half-truths they feed you).
I give you the scientific conclusion of an anti-smoker researcher (Chapman) — who would love nothing more than to make smokers non-existent for you — and you facts in MY statement are untrue?? You must mean you know better than Chapman who at least has the guts to call out his colleagues who are so blinded by their goal they will forego the facts (and degrade the entire field of science) and stick to the dogma. The ends justify the means.
I do not mock, I point out reality. If someone is prone to anxiety attacks at what line in the sand do YOU propose we need to start tiptoing around that person? Maybe loud noise or a certain sight or sound brings it on. Do you equally propose then that it be legislated away? Everyone has to whisper or certain things kept out of sight? As much as you want to put smoking in its own class it’s not. To do so is discriminatory. To be credible you must be consistent. If you have asthma whereby it’s alleged to be brought on by vehicle exhaust too then you must equally advocate for the “minimization” of vehicles you have to encounter. No cars on campus. Park in a lot off campus and walk on. And why stop there. No private vehicles on the roads, just public transportation. Allergies to perfumes are much more prevalent and causal than the super sensitive person who has talked themselves into some sort of attack due to a whiff of smoke. I ask you seriously… what about THOSE people? Are you as fervent for a ban on scented personal products? Does anyone HAVE TO use scented shampoo? You dismiss my argument as a diversion but I’m pinning you down to a consistency in order to prove who it is here that is exhibiting a bias. Why is one treated less seriously from another when, as you assert, it could be life and death for the person with a perfume allergy?
Up till now my analogy has played on your field to highlight the real bias that’s going on. But more importantly, you’ve bought into the ridiculous notion that passing cigarette smoke outdoors is capable of killing someone. That is an absolute lie. Manslaughter? Can you be more shrill?
What you paint is the equivalent of someone not liking the way someone looks (e.g. “he looked like a criminal”) so you run into the street in fear to get away and get run over by a car. Meanwhile that person was no criminal. Should we ban that guy for having a “look”? THAT’S what you propose. I’m sorry but I will not have what little freedom I have left stripped from me because someone’s fear of my smoke, and not the smoke itself (because it’s biologically implausible), causes them to have an asthma attack.
So far there’s been ONE weak study on cigarette smoke outdoors. The author was Neil E. Klepeis.
He wrote: “When the cigarette goes out the smoke is gone, not like in a bar where it hangs around for hours,” and admitted the brevity of exposure served to make it inordinately difficult to ascertain the actual health risk. He further said that if you are upwind from a smoker – even if sitting right next to him! — or six feet away “you’ll get no exposure to the outdoor smoke.”
Both your and Amy’s arguments about smoking hanging in the air are bogus. And strictly for argument’s sake, the ODOR of something (on a tree?? really??) doesn’t translate into a harmful condition.
And Amy, are you serious? People can avoid perfume? Can avoid animals? Can avoid areas with flashing lights? All are all around! As much as any cigarette smokers you might come across and likely more. So those people can “just avoid it” but there’s no equal avoidance offered for smokers?
I’ll end with asking you (Amy)to seriously examine this statement of yours: ” If second hand smoke truly did not pose any health risks to nonsmokers, do you truly believe so many regulations and prohibitions of smoking would have passed?”
I refer back to my opening paragraph for starters. Then ask you to ask yourself, “If blacks weren’t such a problem do you truly believe so many regulations and prohibitions on intermingling would have passed?” The U.S. Supreme Court itself upheld segregation! Thus your “clever” question is no defense at all. When there is a hate agenda out there, those who are SUPPOSED to be above it can be as hateful as the next man.
Hey Michael your idea of ventilated zones sounds very familiar to something implemented in my hometown in the Cayman Islands. I think that is a very great idea in which smokers can enjoy a quality smoking area and where non smokers can know to avoid the harmful cigarette smoke.
Audrey, there are several ‘facts’ in your statement that are untrue and misleading. I will not get into it more with you, because as Amy said, you seem rather bias and unwilling to compromise. In fact, you seem to be mocking the very real physical and medical problems of those with afflictions such as asthma, allergies, and anxiety attacks. What you seem to miss is that all three of the previously mentioned afflictions, without immediate help, can be fatal far faster that cigarette smoke. Therefore if cigarette smoke triggers these illness, do you not think it is in the school’s best interest to minimize the risk that a student can die from a preventable cause.
Furthermore, it is the school’s policy to provided a safe learning environment. How would you feel if your smoking killed someone? a) you would go to jail for manslaughter, b) the family could sue you and the school, and c) if you cared, you would have a very guilty conscience. I sincerely hope that the school realizes that as of now they are putting the desired harmful choices of a few above the lives of everyone on campus; whether it causes a trigger of their illness, cancer or death. I believe that the compromise of smoking zones will ensure the safety of those who choose not to smoke.
Michael, all I want is to be able to go to my classes and enjoy an outdoor event every now and then without having to worry about coming across cigarette smoke. The smoking zones would significantly reduce my problem and for smokers to be able to smoke, so I am fully supportive of designated smoking zones. As I mentioned earlier, I understand that smokers have their reasons for choosing to smoke, but smokers need to understand nonsmokers choose not to smoke to protect their health. I believe that designated smoking zones is a compromise that would greatly reduce nonsmokers’ risk of second hand smoke and still give smokers a place to smoke.
Audrey, I was also responding to smoking outdoors, as that is where the problem currently is. What I meant about smoke in the air POSSIBLY defying the laws of physics is that I do not believe that if a person smokes outside of Riverside, one will not smell it outside the Cass gym. However, when people smoke, the smoke does remain in the area for a least a while. Smokers may not be able to smell it because they are around it so much, but it does linger. Also, Samantha provided a scientific explanation of how clouds of smoke actually do NOT defy the laws of physics. The smoke coming from a cigarette is concentrated enough in that area to do harm. If second hand smoke truly did not pose any health risks to nonsmokers, do you truly believe so many regulations and prohibitions of smoking would have passed?
You do not know me, and you made it very clear how little you know about asthma; therefore, you have NO authority to undermine my illness or disregard my experience. You were not there while I was fighting for every breath of life to stay alive. For your information, if you must know, I also react to smoke from fires (Remember the smoke that reached Tampa last semester from the forest fires in north Florida), car exhaust, smoke from a barbeque, etc. I didn’t mention it earlier because a) the details of my illness are none of your business, b) that has nothing to do with the article, and c) the only smoke problem on campus is cigarette smoke. The more concentrated the smoke is, the worse I react. Cigarette smoke is very concentrated when I come across it; therefore, I have the worst reactions to it. You cannot say that there are no health risks with smoke because I am living proof that there are risks. Also, I do not defy the laws of toxicology as you explain them.
As for people with other allergies, I do not believe I am superior to them. If someone is allergic animals, they can do everything to try to avoid them. If someone is allergic to perfume/cologne, he or she can avoid the scent. If someone has epilepsy, he or she can avoid areas and TV shows with flashing lights. My problem is that smoke is a gas that is dispersed over large areas. Since you know a lot about physics, I trust you know about dispersion. I can avoid campfires and barbeques to cope with my illness, but I cannot avoid smokers if they are in front of every doorway and on every walkway I need to get to my classes/destinations. I can, however, avoid certain designated areas. That is why my fight has actually been for designated smoking zones. Zones would protect my unalienable right to life (located in black in white in the first few lines of the Declaration of Independence) while providing smokers a place to smoke.
I like to give smokers the benefit of the doubt in that maybe they sincerely do not realize the health risks their habit places on others. In all honesty, I did not know either until I suffered them myself. Whether you chose to accept it, the fact is that second hand smoke is a serious health risk. I will not argue this anymore with you because you are clearly in too much denial and/or too blinded by your own personal bias to accept the facts.
Amy, no, I’m not missing the point. While I can go on to dispute the issue of cigarette smoke indoors or in general that is NOT what this article is about. It’s you who diverts the issue by resorting to a broad statement (“secondhand smoke harms the health of non-smokers”) when the original argument was smoking OUTDOORS and which I am responding to. Now, if smoke hanging in the air defies the laws of physics you cannot go on to claim, in the same breath, that it remains in the air for a while. It does not. Also, the rule of law in toxicology is the dose makes the poison. Even the CDC has a statement that the mere presence of something is not enough to equal harm. It must be in a high enough dose. Smoke outdoors is about as close a zero to dose as you can get.
Your own experience is not proof of anything and actually flies in the face of toxicology. If you do not suffer such severe (or any I would guess) effects from the vehicles you pass or at a barbecue or watching fireworks then what you suffer from is self-induced anxiety that BRINGS ON an asthma attack (if that, and not mere hyperventilation).
NYC Mayor Bloomberg — the man who wants the same as you — unwittingly unmasked all of the anti-smoker rhetoric when, in response to concerns about “toxins” during a large fire at the Staten Island Landfill several months ago, said, “There’s no health issues here, you have fires all the time, smoke goes off into the air.” Bloomberg said the fire shouldn’t pose a health risk because what burned was mostly old Christmas trees and trees that were knocked down by Tropical Storm Irene.
Quoting one of the most rabid anti-smoker activist researchers in the world — Dr. Simon Chapman of Australia — he reinforces that there’s no distinction by putting the kind of thing Bloomberg said in context with whiffs of cigarette smoke in the air:
“To me, ‘going too far’ in [secondhand smoke] policy means efforts premised on reducing harm to others, which ban smoking in outdoor settings such as ships’ decks, parks, golf courses, beaches, outdoor parking lots, hospital gardens, and streets.
“[W]hile tobacco smoke has its own range of recognisable smells, there are few differences between the physics and chemistry of tobacco smoke and smoke generated by the incomplete combustion of any biomass, whether it be eucalyptus leaves, campfire logs, gasoline, or meat on a barbeque. Secondhand smoke is not so uniquely noxious that it justifies extraordinary controls of such stringency that zero tolerance outdoors is the only acceptable policy.”
– Going Too Far? Exploring the Limits of Smoking Regulation, William Mitchell Law Review, October 23, 2007
There are many people who suffer from allergies to things like pet hair or perfume/cologne. Would you say your issue is superior to those? Shouldn’t they have as much demand as you to not have to encounter pets being walked on the street (or worse, no clothes that bear pet hair) or people wearing a scent? Let’s revoke everyone’s life to suit those who have unfortunately been dealt a problem! No flashing lights for those with epilepsy!
In a civil society it’s YOU who needs to find a way to cope with the world around you, not have the world stop for you. Especially when there’s no valid scientific evidence to back up your beliefs and when the war on smokers holds zero compromise. Non-smokers whined their heads off “can’t you just go outside.” Smokers did and that’s not enough? Now they’re banning it in people’s homes. So you’re darn right I’m going to draw a line in what’s devolved into a hate campaign, not a health campaign.
A brief additional suggestion regarding Samantha’s thought on implementing “smoking zones” and Amy’s concerns about unwilling encounters with smoke. Outdoor campus smoking would probably be GREATLY reduced if a few comfortable and inviting indoor areas with exhaust ventilation were made available for smoking students and their friends to relax in and chat and study together when not in class.
How would you feel about that?
If your concern is truly about unwilling encounters with smoke on the campus this would largely solve your problem and you should be willing to work with those who would promote such spaces. Is it, and are you?
If you’re simply antismoking of course then you wouldn’t support such an idea.
- MJM
It’s amazing how thoroughly students’ minds have been warped by the SmokeFree Campuses people. Clouds of smoke hanging in the open air? Why don’t you take your camera out and photograph them? Perhaps take a video of them as they wander across the campus choking innocent people.
Re the harm of secondhand smoke: Audrey is correct. Read the Surgeon Generals’ Reports and examine the studies comparing MS and SS both chemically and in volume. Look at studies of concentrations vs. dilution volumes and lung volumes per hour. Don’t simply believe the propaganda because you believe it comes from “the good guys.” The “good guys” lie too you know, if they feel it forwards their “good” goals.
In terms of the harm the smoke does to others, almost anything can set off an asthma attack and I’m sure a good many more are set off by allergic reactions to campus greenery than to encounters with smoke. Should campuses cover their entire grounds in concrete? Why should those allergic to pollen have to suffer the consequences of lawns being mowed or rose bushes or mulberry trees poisoning the air just because some idiots think the growing stuff “looks nice”?
‘
In terms of a lifelong health threat, read the EPA Report: it claims that constant indoor exposure for eight hours a day at indoor workplaces for forty straight years produces a 19% increase in the base .4% rate of nonsmokers’ lung cancer. That’s one extra lung cancer per 40,000 worker-years of exposure. When you correct for intensities and durations of exposure, it would take twenty-five MILLION student-years to produce a single lung cancer even if you were forced to walk through TEN groups of smokers by the doors EVERY DAY for those 25 million years.
‘
Do some reading aside from propaganda “factsheets” and websites. Try reading my “Lies Behind the Smoking Bans” at
‘
http://Tinyurl.com/SmokingBanLies
‘
and feel perfectly free to offer any specific, substantive criticisms you might have of the material in it. I promise I won’t mind, and I’ll try to stop back to respond.
‘
Michael J. McFadden,
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Audrey I disagree with your statement that thick clouds of smoke hanging in the open air defies the laws of gravity. One of those laws of gravity states that a body in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Therefore, considering this law, as long as a smoker has a lit cigarette, the smoke will continue to spread throughout the immediate area until the cigarette is put out. Unfortunately for most non-smokers, the smokers of this campus congregate around the entrances to all buildings, as there are tops on the garbage designed to put them out. Consequently, through the actions of several smokers consistently smoking in one area, it is entirely possible that the area will be permeated with the smoke throughout the day.
Interestingly enough, there have been many studies that document that trees are capable of absorbing scents around them in the rings of their barks; hence the ability to discover which areas trees were taken from and how old they are. By analyzing what chemicals have been absorbed into the tree, it is easy enough to compare them to specific chemical levels found at certain locations throughout history. This being said, the trees around here constantly hold the cigarette smoking scent in the areas populated frequently on campus.
Furthermore, it is a true fact that second hand smoke is more harmful than direct smoking. This is due to the almost inch long filter between the cigarette substance and the smoker. As a result, the smoke given off by the tip is fully concentrated to those located in the immediate vicinity. This does not insinuate that you must have your ‘nose right to the tip of the burning cigarette’ as the smoke naturally disperses outwards to areas where it is less concentrated (the physics law of dispersion). Second hand smoke does not depend on a concentrated burst of smoke in one puff; subsequently the minimal smoke dispersed in the air can, in fact, build up over time to lead to a second hand smoke affliction. Indeed you are correct that breathing in whiffs of smoke does not compare to direct inhalation, because direct inhalation is a minimized portion of the concentrated smoke let off by the tip, which is void of the filter provided to the smoker. So, as you can see, smoking in front of buildings does harm others far worse than you would expect. If the implementation of smoking zones were put in place, it would satisfy the smokers desire to smoke while adhering to the non-smokers right to life without any kind of cigarette smoke as per their personal choices.
Audrey, you are missing the point of this article, which is that secondhand smoke harms the health of non-smokers. Maybe a thick cloud of smoke hanging in the open air defies the law of physics, but smoke does remain in the air at least for a while after smokers have left the area. I would know because I have come across and choked on clouds of smoke on campus when there were no smokers present. As for the smoke being more harmful at the tip of the cigarette, I am not 100% sure about that. I will leave that to the scientists to debate. HOWEVER, what I am 100% sure about is that second-hand smoke is indeed very harmful to people’s health. Like several students on this campus, I suffer from asthma. Second-hand smoke has harmed my health in ways that you cannot imagine. Last January, I was walking back from a class when I crossed paths with a smoker just as he was blowing out his smoke. I ended up inhaling his entire puff of smoke (Mind you, I was a foot away from him; my nose was not directly at the tip). That caused me to go into an asthma attack so severe that I literally almost died in a hospital that night. I ended up spending the rest of the semester struggling to get my health back, and all of this was from ONE puff. You can believe what you want to believe, but the facts are that there is a smoking problem on campus and it is a life-threatening risk to non-smokers. I understand that smokers have their reasons for chosing to smoke, but non-smokers chose not to smoke to protect their health. Why should non-smokers have to suffer the consequences of smoking?
Sorry, but to say that a thick cloud of smoke hangs in the open air defies the law of physics. It’s equally dishonest to repeat the assertion that the smoke off the tip of the cigarette is more harmful than primary smoking. Quote the rabid anti-smoker researchers all you want but peek underneath their skirts and you’ll find the rest of the story behind such propaganda. Their statement MIGHT only be true (as their fine print says) if you were to put your nose right to the tip of the burning cigarette. But once it leaves there the dilution is immense. Common sense alone is all that’s needed to know that whiffs of smoke in the air cannot compare to direct inhalation from the cigarette into the lungs. To want to believe anything more is to grasp hold of what works for a personal bias — in this case against smoking.