Spring Break
Killing myself slowly is my choice
Angelo Lanham
Issue date: 5/15/08 Section: Opinion
The claims I've heard from most supporters of the mundane idea of a smoke-free campus make it sound like smokers are packs of uncivilized wolves, running up to the good citizens of the university and blowing smoke in their faces, cackling all the way.
OK, I'll be fair. Secondhand smoke is bad, and we do have significant evidence that smoking can lead to cancer. Anyone who is nominally literate and understands the English language can collect all four surgeon general warnings on various packs.
We know that it can cause birth defects; we know that quitting now can extend your life considerably, and we know that cigarette smoke contains carbon monoxide. All from reading the precious boxes of cancer sticks.
All the same, these are risks that literate SJSU smokers are aware of. They've read the boxes, and have made their choice.
So if they don't run around like jackals, cornering and eradicating non-smokers with secondhand smoke, what's the problem? Aren't we allowed to bring on our own slow, painful consumer-driven death anymore? What is this country coming to?
I'm almost tempted to patronize the old cliché and compare it to fast food, which is nothing if not abundant (and overpriced) at SJSU's Student Union.
Shall we save the morbidly obese from themselves as well?
That's just crazy talk.
Another tidbit from the article mentions that the committee's slide show contained a factoid that smokers only get 15 percent of their secondhand smoke, while the remaining 85 percent falls on innocent bystanders.
This isn't a problem either, though. Smokers smoke with other smokers. So if two smokers are puffing away a pack of Kools, they will inhale their own 15 percent, and their neighbor's 85 percent, for a whopping 100 percent of secondhand smoke.
Thus, the smokers will kill themselves off and the problem will take care of itself.
The point here is that SJSU students have to be trusted to make their own decisions, whether it means trusting them to not patronize the campus Burger King's "two double cheeseburgers for two dollars" deal or trusting them not to start smoking like all the cool kids.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have two double cheeseburgers, a carton of cigarettes, a fifth of whiskey and some cyanide to consume.
OK, I'll be fair. Secondhand smoke is bad, and we do have significant evidence that smoking can lead to cancer. Anyone who is nominally literate and understands the English language can collect all four surgeon general warnings on various packs.
We know that it can cause birth defects; we know that quitting now can extend your life considerably, and we know that cigarette smoke contains carbon monoxide. All from reading the precious boxes of cancer sticks.
All the same, these are risks that literate SJSU smokers are aware of. They've read the boxes, and have made their choice.
So if they don't run around like jackals, cornering and eradicating non-smokers with secondhand smoke, what's the problem? Aren't we allowed to bring on our own slow, painful consumer-driven death anymore? What is this country coming to?
I'm almost tempted to patronize the old cliché and compare it to fast food, which is nothing if not abundant (and overpriced) at SJSU's Student Union.
Shall we save the morbidly obese from themselves as well?
That's just crazy talk.
Another tidbit from the article mentions that the committee's slide show contained a factoid that smokers only get 15 percent of their secondhand smoke, while the remaining 85 percent falls on innocent bystanders.
This isn't a problem either, though. Smokers smoke with other smokers. So if two smokers are puffing away a pack of Kools, they will inhale their own 15 percent, and their neighbor's 85 percent, for a whopping 100 percent of secondhand smoke.
Thus, the smokers will kill themselves off and the problem will take care of itself.
The point here is that SJSU students have to be trusted to make their own decisions, whether it means trusting them to not patronize the campus Burger King's "two double cheeseburgers for two dollars" deal or trusting them not to start smoking like all the cool kids.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have two double cheeseburgers, a carton of cigarettes, a fifth of whiskey and some cyanide to consume.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 5
Rick Solsten
posted 5/15/08 @ 11:16 AM PST
I sympathize with your libertarian view concerning personal habits, and many of your points about smoking are well taken. We are individually responsible for our own health - at least as far as we are able to affect the status of our health. (Continued…)
Kristi
posted 5/15/08 @ 11:53 AM PST
Angelo, the major flaw to your story is that when you compare smoking to other things like fast food, you fail to realize that people who eat fast food are not harming others while they're eating it. (Continued…)
Lauren
posted 5/15/08 @ 12:34 PM PST
The problem I have with all of this is that if smoking is so darned horrible and dangerous that we have to regulate and restrict it so stringently then shouldn't it be made illegal? I'm a bit sick of the hypocritical stance taken when cigs are taxed outrageously and tobacco growing continues to add to this nation's farming community. (Continued…)
Post a Comment