Ban Smoking on Campus

Sam · Post by **Sam** » January 22, 2005, 8:38 pm

I wrote this letter to SGA President Chris Curtis, and he asked that I post my opinion on BearNotes to get feedback from other students. Whether you agree or disagree, please give your opinion below...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Curtis:

I read the article from Tuesday's The Standard about the possibility of banning smoking on campus.

I would be grateful, as many other health-conscious students would be, if this became a reality. It is so important in fact, that I feel it should be given priority over other things such as the music downloading project.

I'm sure you have heard numerous students weigh in about why people should be allowed to smoke and why people should not be allowed to smoke on campus. The simple fact is that each time I walk into Strong for my class on Tuesday morning, I walk through the "cloud" of smoke and this takes a few days from my life each time. Not only that, but the stress of knowing that my life is being shortened further shortens my life (since stress is bad for your health).

Fight for the little guy Chris! Anyway, I hope you will move on this issue soon.

~Sam
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

the_red_chimp · Post by **the_red_chimp** » January 23, 2005, 12:12 am

I agree with the general principle, and I even agree that walking through clouds of smoke is annoying.

However, your statements are beyond exaggeration to the point of just being ridiculous and probably doing more harm than good if it were to get published.
(Walking through a cloud isn't going to shorten your life nearly as much as you think. If you don't smoke, it's going to be more of an annoyance than a life threatening occurence. Not eating meat is going to do you a lot more harm than walking through smoke.)

A ban might be considered a good thing by some nonsmokers, but you're going to be causing more trouble for the University than good. Banning smoking would probably drive students away. That's a pretty large area that people wouldn't be able to smoke on. Secondly, it's going to cost a lot to enforce. I mean, how are people going to get caught? By the parking nannies? I don't think that anyone is going to pay it too much heed that currently smokes.

Lastly, don't compare two completely unrelated projects, as their timetables don't really affect each other that much. Music downloading might not be important to you, but anything that removes the bandwidth cap is a lot more important to me than having to hold my breath for 10 seconds.

rchif0 · Post by **rchif0** » January 23, 2005, 12:27 pm

I hate smoking. It smells horrible, and the people who do it smell horrible. But banning smoking is a candyass little thing that isn't going to work. Trying to place a ban on outdoor smoking is fairly ridiculous. If you think walking through an outdoor cloud of smoke is going to hurt you, then you ought to worry more about the exhaust fumes of all the little cars in a big city like Springfield.

P.S. Stressing out over it is pretty sad too guy.

solid_dave · Post by **solid_dave** » January 23, 2005, 1:29 pm

Actually, as liberal is this campus is, I could totally see a campus wide ban.... Look at what they did in bars and resturants in springfield.

OK, maybe it's just me, I used to work in a cavern of smoke and felt and slate called a pool hall, sometimes you couldn't see from end to end the smoke was so thick. But I seriously think there are bigger and better things to be worried about here at SMS .. or MS.... *WINK* than having yer pink lil' lungs slightly irritated for a moment having to breathe in smoke... in fact, I don't think I've ever even SMELLED smoke on campus aside from when I was sitting directly beside a smoker outside WHILE they were smoking...

Jeez Sam, I know yer avatars a girl, but get the sand out of yer Vagina, dude.

Post by **Paco103** » January 23, 2005, 4:27 pm

the_red_chimp wrote:Not eating meat is going to do you a lot more harm than walking through smoke.
. . . .
Lastly, don't compare two completely unrelated projects, as their timetables don't really affect each other that much. Music downloading might not be important to you, but anything that removes the bandwidth cap is a lot more important to me than having to hold my breath for 10 seconds.

First off why is not eating meat such a bad thing? There's plenty of other ways to get protein. I personally prefer a slab of steak, but I prefer to get my water from a fresh spring rather than a chlorine pumped city well too.

Second, getting the music downloading on campus will NOT remove your bandwidth cap.

I don't think it would work to ban smoking on campus entirely, and enforcing would be a huge problem. It would be possible to perhaps limit it to designated areas, but I don't think it could be banned absolutely.

Third: Every single one of you has made a personal attack against someone for their opinion. Maybe he exaggerated the "few days every time" - but everyone exaggerates things to make a point. We all know it's not THAT significant for each breath, but it's still annoying, and I don't appreciate the smell. My stance is that as long as the government is not going to make it illegal, then they have the right to smoke. We all know that it's not going to be made illegal anytime soon.

Play nice boys, and state your opinions, but try to keep the personal attacks to a minimum

rchif0 · Post by **rchif0** » January 23, 2005, 5:05 pm

You don't have to stick up for Sam, Paco.. he's a big boy and can (hopefully) take care of himself. These were mild forms of personal attacks, and aren't offensive that much. Except for Dave's 'ole "sand in the vagina" comment.. haha. But seriously, if it were anybody but Sam, would you have defended him or her?

tiffybird24 · Post by **tiffybird24** » January 24, 2005, 7:12 am

of course he would...paco is the first person there to defend someone when defending might possibly be needed. i know he would defend me if there were persponal attacks on me, and i hadn't gotten a chance to defend myself. its just the curtious thing to do....of course i know that today not many people would do the curtious thing so its always a shock when someone does.

rchif0 · Post by **rchif0** » January 24, 2005, 10:20 am

You missed the point. There wasn't anything worth defending.

solid_dave · Post by **solid_dave** » January 24, 2005, 4:28 pm

yeah, for real, ya know, that was pretty mild, and I know that Paco remembers how bad stuff got with Truby around... this exchange ain't shit compared to the name calling ridiculousness that he brought.

Celtic Samurai · Post by **Celtic Samurai** » January 28, 2005, 9:15 am

There is no evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke (indoors or otherwise) has any effect on your health. All organazations who point to thier "evidence" of such, base thier claims on an EPA study done in the early 90's. A federal court threw out the study with the conclusion that the EPA had intentionally inflated the numbers in the study, in order to support thier desired result and that any increase in the likleyhood of health effects of second-hand smoke is "statisticlly insignificant".

To put into hard numbers, the chance of getting cancer from those who have been exposed heavily to second-hand smoke is roughly 12.5 in 1,000,000. For someone who has never been exposed to second-hand smoke: 10.5 in 1,000,000. Statisticly insignificant.

In other words, quit being a fucking titty-baby.

Sam · Post by **Sam** » January 28, 2005, 1:36 pm

No effect on my health huh?? Lol. My eyes get red and watery, I cough, my lungs burn... Sure, no effect at all.

And once again, name calling. Yeah, that makes you look real smart.

rchif0 · Post by **rchif0** » January 28, 2005, 2:28 pm

You sure pwnt us all there.

Post by **Paco103** » January 28, 2005, 5:38 pm

Health aspects aside: Other people drinking does not effect YOUR health, but "public drunken-ness" is illegal. Other people having sex on the sidewalk does not effect YOUR health - but "indecent exposure" is illegal.

I personally don't support the Springfield smoking ban, even though I like not having smoke in my face. A business is private property, and therefore if they wish to allow smoking that is their decision, and it is my decision as a non-smoker to not go there if it bothers me.

As far as a smoking ban on Campus - I would like not having smoke in my face. No, it's not killing me, but it does irritate my eyes and nose for the time I'm in it's path. I don't think it will be effective though, since nobody could really enforce it.

This discussion is accomplishing nothing except showing how we can all call each other names, so it is now locked. Let's try to move past 7th grade, huh?