27°
18°
10°
Mostly Cloudy | Weather provided by KSTP.com
Letters to the Editor

Response to smoking ban column


BY Joseph McCarron
PUBLISHED: 11/18/2008

“Second hand smoke kills - we know that. So why hasn't the University of Minnesota taken more progressive steps to protect its faculty, staff, and students who have made the intentional choice not to smoke?”

Where do I begin?

First of all, lets note that neither the University nor the state of Minnesota allow smoking indoors. How close do you stand to the smokers (huddled freezing outside buildings) that you are worried about secondhand smoke outside?

Nevertheless, even if we assume that outdoor secondhand smoke does have the potential to kill people; does that warrant a campus-wide ban? By that logic we should ban anything that has the remote potential to kill people.

Guns for one must go, but yet there is no ban I know of that says people who are legally permitted to carry a gun — as I am legally permitted to smoke — are not allowed to do so on campus. Bullets do kill. There have been a number of campus shootings at schools around the country in the past few years. Students kill people. Perhaps we should have a ban on students.

Cars killed over 41,000 people in the U.S. last year. Driving is the real killer. No more cars. Ride the bus? That probably kills more people than outdoor secondhand smoke too.

And while we’re talking about transportation, any fossil-fuel powered vehicle emits toxic gases that not only hurt our environment but can kill people! There are a number of us on campus who chooses not to drive. Should we be subjected to your lethal toxic fumes?

The cooking of meat has been proven to release a number of toxins, including carcinogens! Yes, the very same chemicals that are at the center of every argument against smoking are released when cooking meat. I think all of the omnivores on campus owe the vegetarians an apology. No more meat.

Obviously I am getting a little sarcastic here, but are my arguments really that outlandish? I charge anyone to find the statistics on any of these. I bet there are more reported casualties from any one of the killers I mentioned than from outdoor secondhand smoke. So let’s ease up on the rhetoric. Smokers aren’t out to get you with their secondhand smoke of death, and the University should not have to “protect” you from them.

I used to be a smoker. I never smoked when other people were near me. I would walk away, often into the rain, from a bus stop so that no one had to breathe my smoke. I wouldn’t smoke in any area that people were already occupying, or would soon be occupying. I think most smokers realize that people don’t want to be smoked on, and try to be courteous about it.

Start enacting bans on some of the real killers first. Then we can talk. Until then: don’t stand so close. You’ll survive.

Joseph McCarron

University student

Comments

The Minnesota Daily wants to host a forum for discussion regarding issues and stories regarding the University of Minnesota and surrounding communities. However, the online comments should not be used to threaten or defame. This is a place for people to be heard, and want to contribute to discussion. Those who persist to use expletives, inappropriate, racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post.

Secondhand smoke

Secondhand smoke does NOT kill. So sayeth the Surgeon General. Well, actually, the 2006 report said that the evidence is 'inconclusive' regarding the health effects of shs. The EPA's report was thrown out by a federal court and declared null and void because it was biased and based on poor science and overly imaginative conclusions. OSHA does not consider shs to be a workplace hazard of any consequence. And on and on. But the liberal media and a gullible public do not question the misinformation being thrown about by the anti's. Mark Twain said there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Shame on us!

Aww man

Good points, but why attack the "liberal media"?! I'm liberal as hell, and I find this ban disturbing. Liberals typically want more government involvement in social programs and less governing of our lives. Thus, I'm sure most of us terrible liberals think this ban is ridiculous.

You had me until 'liberal

You had me until 'liberal media'.

Informed opinions have no

Informed opinions have no place in this debate! We all know that cigarettes and the smokers that smoke them are all evil. Ha! j/k..... great article and comments. But, I'm afraid that this thing is going to happen regardless of facts and science. It's politically popular to blame cigarettes and smoking for all the country's health problems.

I for one, being an ex-smoker

I for one, being an ex-smoker for several years now, plan to start up again (not inhaling, just puffing on the sticks around campus) if the ban occurs!! Civil disobedience has shown good results in the past when liberties were unduly infringed upon, and I know I won't be alone in these acts.

Fumes: Meaty Vs. Magickal...

Joseph McCarron thought he was being sarcastic about toxins from cooking meat, but one recent study indicated that up to 40% of the airborne toxins of a certain type (PAH's? I forget at the moment.) in Los Angeles were coming from fast food franchise meat cooking. Contrast this with general figures showing cigarettes contribute far less than a single percent to LA's smog.

And, lest we forget, Antismokers rant and rave against allowing separate rooms in the same buildings for smoking... yet just think of the deadliness of the concentrated fumes being generated in the VERY SAME AIR SPACE as all the diners at the local Flame Broiled McWhoppers joint! Somehow, oddly, inexplicably, perhaps magickally, ventilation is able to shwooosh all those nasties away from the diners and workers while being totally unable to handle the quiet wisps of smoke from a few tobacco leaves.

I guess it's a good thing Saddam Hussein didn't have tobacco fields to burn or the world would be a graveyard at this point, eh?

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

Very lucrative partnership

Smoking bans are designed to coerce smokers into quitting their habit by making their life as miserable as public opinion will permit. This coercion, combined with the fact that they have brainwashed smokers to believe that they are too severely addicted to quit on their own, profit the powerful pharmaceutical industry who makes billions selling nicotine replacement treatment throughout the world, albeit their very low rate of success. What better business partnership between governments who collect taxes, the pharmaceutical industry that profits from the repeat sales of nicotine replacement treatment and anti-smoking activists who profit from the grants of both?

I think you're on to

I think you're on to something here!

Meat and Cancer (Re: Michael J. McFadden)

I actually played the "meat cooking causes cancer" off as sarcasm as to not seem too pushy. It is true that fumes from cooking meat are highly toxic and full of carcinogens, especially when cooking processed meat.
It frustrates me beyond belief that people are so willing to take advantage of their marginal majority to restrict the rights of others. A tyranny of the majority if I have ever seen one...

Wait a minute...

If nicotine is the most addictive substance commonly available, and if we are regularly exposed to levels of secondhand smoke that will kill us, why is no one addicted to secondhand smoke?

I rest my case.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <b> <i> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
Are you human?
Image CAPTCHA
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.