A variety of input is needed when considering a decision that will potentially affect a sizable minority of students and faculty.
Smoking kills. There is no denying the facts. The habit has been linked to several types of cancer and other respiratory illnesses. Now, a finding by the Surgeon General has finally shown a direct link between secondhand smoke and cancer. This and a letter from a group of students prompted the University to form the committee to explore the possibility of a campus-wide smoking ban.
The University is well within its rights to consider such a ban. Several schools in the SEC have already done so, and smoking bans in bars, restaurants and public parks have become more popular nationally.
However, this does not mean the University should hastily react in light of the Surgeon General’s report with a blanket ban on smoking. Careful consideration is needed, and it seems that the committee is doing just that.
There are alternatives to a campus-wide smoking ban. Specific areas could be designated as smoking zones, or the University could mandate no smoking within a hundred feet of any campus building. Such policies would allow smokers to maintain their lifestyle while keeping secondhand smoke out of the lungs of passersby.
However, the University could argue that setting up smoking zones would in fact be acknowledging and condoning a bad habit. It may be that the status quo is the only possible alternative to a campus ban.
Yet even if the University proceeds with its smoking ban, it will be difficult to enforce.
Campus police and security are not everywhere at once, and smokers will undoubtedly take measures to thwart the policy the same way dorm residents smuggle alcohol and illegal drugs. Regardless, many students will not wish to take the risk of suffering whatever penalties the University chooses to impose for violations of the policy, and perhaps some will instead try to quit smoking.
Or maybe it will only create a small minority of students anxious in class, itching to leave campus to satisfy their nicotine craving.
It is clear there is no easy answer to the University’s question of a campus smoking ban. The committee must proceed carefully, considering all points of view along the way.
Regardless of its decision, the University considering such a ban shows it holds the health and safety of its students to the utmost importance. For this, we should all be grateful.
You should look around your campus and think about the sources of the information you've been given by people pushing these bans. I'm willing to bet about 90% of it will be at least partly supported by the "Smoke-Free" folks funded by taxes or grants from the NicoGummyPatchyProductPushers.
If you'd like to spread some information from the "other side" download and print out "The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans" Just Google "V.Gen5H" and click on The Health Arguments.
It's a one-sided Tom Paine style "rabble rouser," but its facts are accurate and their presentation is both honest and presented in an easily readable print-out format. Bind it in slidebar grip clear plastic term paper covers and spread it around. If you'd like to customize it for your campus go right ahead. Email Cantiloper on the AOL system if you want help.
The people pushing these college bans are professionals. Google Smoke-Free Campuses and see the sorts of information you get and where their funding comes from. Don't fall for their tricks. For example: one of their favorites is the Bandwagon Fallacy: "Everyone ELSE is doing it! Don't be the LAST!" Actually, before the big organizations got involved three years ago there were less than 100 totally smoke-banned campuses. They've built that up to about 400 now, but that's still less than 10% of the nationwide total.
There has never yet been a single scientific study showing any degree of harm from the concentration and duration of exposure to secondary smoke that anyone would get outdoors on a campus. If anyone wants to dispute that go right ahead: try to find a study (Not a report, statement, opinion, factsheet, or website, but a STUDY!) with accessible data that shows differently and post it up here to show I'm wrong. If I miss it somehow, again, just email me at Cantiloper over on AOL: I stand firmly behind what write.
"Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand
smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers,
cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot
eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand
smoke."
Smoking outside in well-ventilated areas is not a problem; it's not even considered second-hand smoke for the purposes of these reports, if I'm taking my context clues correctly. Thanks for playing.
fish oil