Gentry: Blowing smoke
Is a smoke-free campus too much to ask for?
Student smokers continue to ignore restrictions across campus, putting others at risk. Will the pleas of non-smokers for a smoke-free campus be heard or will they continue to be forced to inhale second-hand smoke?
Friday, March 2nd, 2007
I thought I knew how long 20 feet was, but apparently I was wrong. There’s a sign posted clearly on the doors of Malott Hall, which says, “SMOKE-FREE ENTRANCE: No smoking within 20 feet.” Yet every morning when I trudge up, I pass through a cloud of smoke, courtesy of a crowd of smokers huddled not three feet from the door.
On Sept. 1 of last year, the University of Kansas Medical Center’s campus became smoke-free. This may seem like a drastic or controversial decision, but it’s necessary if smokers refuse to follow posted restrictions.
I understand it’s cold and windy, and not the best condition to feed your habit. I’m sure smokers feel they should be able to smoke without snow blowing into their face or rain extinguishing their cigarettes. But the non-smoking students and faculty shouldn’t be punished by their decision to smoke. We deserve to be able to walk to class in a smoke-free environment. Thankfully, some organizations are starting to respect that.
On Sept. 1 of last year, the University of Kansas Medical Center’s campus became smoke-free. This may seem like a drastic or controversial decision, but it’s necessary if smokers refuse to follow posted restrictions. Most workplaces — approximately 70 percent, according to the American Lung Association — have gone to a smoke-free policy. Though much of campus is outside, we all still have to walk to class. There’s no way around that. Therefore, the entire campus can be seen as one entity, much like an office, which is why it’s not unreasonable to make the entire campus smoke-free.
Some may view this as a restriction of personal liberties. However, smoking does not affect only you. When someone smokes a cigarette, he or she is also forcing others to accept the consequences of the bad decision. According to the American Lung Association, even short exposure to second-hand smoke can cause “blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability.” As a result, non-smokers that are exposed to secondhand smoke regularly are 25 percent more likely to have coronary heart diseases. Secondhand smoke also contains many of the same chemicals found in first-hand smoke, such as “formaldehyde, vinyl chloride and arsenic ammonia.” According to Cancer Research UK, an independent organization dedicated to cancer research, arsenic ammonia kills the lungs’ cilia, tiny hairs that line the airways and clear toxins. With fewer cilia, it’s much easier for toxic chemicals to stick in the lungs. Non-smokers are being subjected to similar health risks, but we have no choice in the matter so I have no sympathy for smokers who complain about the possibility of not being able to smoke on campus.
Hopefully, the University will eventually recognize the benefits of making our campus smoke-free. Until that happens, smokers should obey posted restrictions. I’m sorry that smokers have an addiction that needs to be fed, but my lungs are pink, and I’d like to keep them that way. Smoke if you must. Just don’t do it where other people have to breathe your smoke against their will.
Gentry is a Kansas City, Kan., sophomore in English.
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
I use to be a smoker, why can't you just hold your breathe for the 3 feet that you take from walking up to the smokers and into the doors. It isn't a big deal. When you understand the smoker's withdrawl and the awful feeling that nicotine has on your body then you'll understand. Now i'm a former smoker, so i can't complain about the door smokers, cause well i use to do it. But if they can't smoke inside atleast give them outside and learn to compromise, not keep pushing them away. Smokers are not bad people
As a fellow nonsmoker, I agree with you that having to smell cigarette smoke when I pass by a smoker is annoying. However, I think that banning smoking on campus would be taking things a step too far.
You see, the studies that you cited, all of them, are for INDOOR secondhand smoke. If you had taken the time to read the actual research papers that you cited off of the website for ALA, you would have noticed this. While I agree with you that indoor secondhand smoke can do a great deal of damage to people who are exposed to it often, especially small children, it is not feasible to argue that outdoor cigarette smoke harms people off of the same set of data. The notion that walking by a smoker two or three times a day and inhaling a small amount of cigarette smoke that has diffused at least 5 feet to get to you is in any way equivalent to being in a 60 m.^2 room with three cigarettes burning for several minutes to hours a day is ridiculous. If this was true, then the vast, vast majority of our population would be at a 25% higher risk for coronary heart disease.
So, while I agree with you that it is good to ban smoking in bars and restaurants, and that the 70% of workplaces which have banned smoking did the right thing, you cannot make a legitimate argument to ban outdoor smoking on campus on the grounds of your own health.
If you want to ban it because it annoys you, that is another argument altogether . I am annoyed by all kinds of things, including loud people, loud bass speakers spouting rap, buses etc. but I don't call to ban them.
Share your 2¢
Requires free registration.