As a non-smoking student, it is finally nice to think I will be able to go about my day on campus not have to worry about the unpleasant sensation of being blasted in the face with someone’s carcinogenic and cancer-laden secondhand smoke.
Although we are late to the party on this issue, these types of grassroots stop-smoking programs will hopefully become a formidable force to counteract the cold, corrupt and careless tobacco lobbyists in Washington. This type of dialogue is very important to have on a university campus, as it will hopefully raise awareness and bring to light the senseless danger people are unknowingly, ignorantly and pointlessly imparting upon themselves.
These sentiments I am expressing in this letter are integral to consider when striving toward a happier and healthier OU. Also evident in the points being raised by the opposition to this movement is a lack of consideration and understanding.
The arguments the opposition brings up are both fallacious and misguided. Here is a sample of, as well as my responses to, the major arguments that have been discussed on The Daily website and within the public discourse so far:
1. “Football games are messy, so we should ban those too because people litter on game days as well.” This is misguided because football events bring in considerably more money than what it costs to clean up the after effects of it. If anything, students who smoke should have to buy a license, proceeds collected from which should pay the salaries of the workers tasked with cleaning up butts on campus, as well as put toward building a private smoking facility that isolates smokers from those wishing not to get cancer and a plethora of other diseases.
2. “Banning smoking on campus won’t serve as a real deterrence.” I agree with this in principle; therefore, we should take a proactive step and ban the use of all smoking-tobacco product use in public places in Norman, followed by Cleveland County, Oklahoma, and the nation. Prohibition is of course not the only action or policy that will lead to the decline of cigarette use. We also need training and education courses regarding the ills and harms of tobacco that is similar to our great alcohol prevention course. I’m absolutely certain that thousands of OU students, faculty and alumni have tragically passed away due to consequences of tobacco, smoking, and secondhand smoke than any other type of preventable harm.
3. If the students see it as a legal activity, that is fine. But as soon as it has a negative impact on my personal health, they are effectively causing me bodily harm by their own careless and inconsiderate actions. Are they going to help pay for my or any other non-smoker’s hospital and medical care bills if we get lung cancer, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases and the thousands of other diseases and ailments associated with secondhand smoke exposure? Also, addiction is a huge influencing factor concerning the position of the opposition. When they deny this or just say they like tobacco on its own, this is false and based upon clouded judgment. I don’t see anyone smoking home-grown or non-commercial tobacco; that is simply because those do not have as much of the ‘special ingredients’ that establish the strangle hold of addiction on the smoker’s brain. To say this is untrue is blatantly false. Tobacco users become irritable, irrational and impulsive when they miss their nicotine fix, and it becomes worse when they try to quit.
There are not any positive benefits to cigaretteusers or bystanders. There are over 7,000 different chemicals in cigarettes — 250 toxic chemicals and 70 that are known to cause cancer.
Center for Disease Control research shows at least 40 percent of non-smokers at any time have measurable amounts of damaging chemicals in their body found exclusively in secondhand smoke. About 46,000 Americans die from heart disease related to secondhand smoke each year and about 4,000 die from secondhand smoke induced lung cancer, noting that secondhand smoke exposure raises your chances of getting heart disease or cancer by 30 percent.
This is an epidemic; the CDC estimates that 88 million Americans are exposed to secondhand smoke annually.
The point I would like to stress is the most publicized by the CDC, and what I assume to be a major factor in Boren’s virtuous decision: “There is no risk-free level of contact with secondhand smoke; even brief exposure can be harmful to health.”
Nolan Kraszkiewicz, religious studies and political science junior
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
baconbits 8 months, 1 week ago
I'm quite positive that a puff of tobacco smoke in passing is not going to give you quite the cancerous suffering you're fearing. Have you seen how quickly smoke disperses into the air?
Issues with second hand smoke involve individuals in closed areas: bars, cars, homes...
All these issues could be solved if the nation, Oklahoma, and our campus supported the smoking of marijuana instead.
Marijuana in fact has been found to help prevent tumour growth. Here's a link from the US National Library of Medicine: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14570037?ordinalpos=18&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
More recent research in this direction has been done and the results are affirming. You can find it from credible sources online if you look.
cacremin 8 months, 1 week ago
To say your personal health is at stake when somebody chooses to smoke OUTSIDE is absurd. Seriously, just move a couple feet upwind or approve designated smoking areas. It's that easy. Nonsmokers are NOT the only people in the world who matter, but by saying this ban would make the campus "happier" that is exactly what you're implying. You are not free of bad habits that others may find annoying and you should learn to share the world with others for a change rather than inflicting your own tastes on everybody else.