Sometimes the most difficult problems have the easiest solutions.
These situations are rare, as the most trying of conundrums will typically be resolved only by a nuanced, multifaceted approach.
As for the growing debate regarding West Virginia University’s smoking task force and the proposition of a campus-wide smoking ban, the solution is easy – remove the root of the problem.
In order to protect the fundamental Constitutional right to breathe smoke-free air while walking into and out of the Mountainlair, I wholeheartedly support not a smoking ban, but the elimination of the smoking population.
Just as the legalization of abortion in the landmark 1973 Roe. v. Wade eliminated an entire generation of would-be criminals before they could exit the womb and wreak havoc on society (as has been stated by notable economist Steven Levitt), any proposed
smoking ban to protect hapless individuals from the inherent dangers of secondhand smoke should first deal with the smokers themselves.
A parallel: It has been said that "Guns don’t kill people. People with guns kill people." Or something like that.
To continue that line of reasoning: Smoke doesn’t kill people, but people who smoke slowly kill themselves (and others they smoke in the presence of who may briefly or for extended periods of time inhale smoke that the original smoker exhaled or the unfiltered side-stream smoke from the smoker’s lit cigarette).
Or something like that.
But everyone knows smoking is bad for the health of the smoker and the health of those extensively exposed to it secondhand.
That story has been hashed and rehashed.
If increased risk of full-body cancer and a shortened life-span doesn’t discourage individuals from lighting up, nothing will. Not even bullet points related to money.
• Decreased car and home resale values
• Increased life insurance and health insurance premiums
• $200,000 in the bank
Oh, the last point caught your eye, did it?
If an individual smokes one pack of cigarettes a day at $5.50 per pack, they will pay roughly $2,000 per year for the privilege to smoke.
A freshman who would annually invest that money into a portfolio earning 9 percent each year (we won’t always be in a recession) would accrue more than $200,000 before age 45.
But the economic costs of smoking go beyond the smoker.
According to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, public and private expenditures for smoking-related health care each year totals $96 billion.
American businesses forfeit an additional $97 billion each year due to losses in worker productivity from days off, smoke breaks and the fact smoking employees tend to die before the firm could squeeze out all the marginal product of labor (this equates to an overwhelming 1 percent of the U.S. economy’s $14 trillion 2009 Gross Domestic Product).
The same study also estimates some 40,000 people in the U.S. will die each year due to secondhand smoke, with another $5 billion spent on health care costs for those with the inability to avoid long-term exposure.
In the words of Tobacco Free Mountaineer Reed Williams, "those are not good numbers."
It’s one thing to hurt yourself. But don’t hurt others.
And don’t dare touch my GDP.
Which is probably what had University officials worried in the first place.
The University should just make the decision for campus smokers to quit for them. Don’t just make it more difficult for smokers to smoke, make it impossible for them to do so.
Smoking is (obviously) a horrible problem on campus. It infringes on rights left and right.
It’s impossible to avoid smoke when walking to and from class and even more
difficult to get the smell off your clothes if you happen to strike up a conversation too near those smokers.
And as the previous statistics show, the costs extend beyond the person lighting up.
The issue needs to be addressed quickly and effectively. Unfortunately, most smokers won’t eliminate themselves for years.
Natural selection, by its very nature, is slow.
So we must expedite the process.
My proposal is simple.
All freshman smokers shall be required to go before a University-run smoking panel.
You have one year to quit smoking. If, after one semester, you have failed to do so, off with your hands. Try lighting a cigarette without hands. It’s hard.
If, after a year, you have failed to quit, off with your head.
Try smoking without a head. Bet you can’t.
Oh, and tuition is non-refundable.
Swift action must be taken to ensure equal access to smoke-free air for all at this University.
Otherwise, the lives of innocent non-smokers will be unnecessarily put at risk. And we can’t have that.
The plan makes about as much sense any attempt by the University to police any smoking ban across our amoeba-like campus.
Besides, allowing individuals to make choices for themselves is a very frightening proposition indeed.
9 comments
Naturally, banning alcohol will help eliminate the 200+ people who die every day in alcohol related car crashes in this country, and it certainly would make our streets safer to walk on after dark. People tend to think with minds that are more focused and clear while sober, and in turn, even the overall GPA of 99% of the students here would go up substantially. You have to admit that I have a wonderful idea here!
- NO MORE ALCOHOL AT WVU SPONSORED EVENTS - PERIOD! -
That will include all tailgate parties, frat parties, and all the like!
I vote for an ALCOHOL FREE Monongalia County and I challenge the powers at be at WVU to take up that hot issue with the roudy drunks here they call a student body! I challenge you!!
And as for my smoking:
I pay 15k a year to attend this university, and no one is going to tell me that I cannot step outside and have a cigarette. How does the university plan to enforce this ban towards people like me? Are you going to write me a ticket? Suspend my Registration? Haul me off to jail? what are you going to do? There is no way on God's green Earth you can enforce a campus-wide smoking ban so give it up. You can't even control the drunky crowds at your own home football games, so how are you going to monitor almost 30k students at one time? How are you going to do it without infringing in on our rights? You can't. You can't do that and not do something about the alcohol problem as well too. Give it up!
And as for the comment that was made about all the greasy, nasty burger joints the university gives us to eat in at lunch, I totally agree. How about focusing on getting us some healthy snacks in the snack machines for a change, and giving us healthy food choices in the MountainLair?
If me standing outside of the MountainLair smoking a cigarette offends you, either wait until I'm done or use another exit. I'm not a drinker - as I do not drink period - and until you do something about all the alcohol-related problems (the REAL problems around here) I am going to continue to smoke whether you like it or not. It's my money I spend to come here, and it is my right.
This issue is we are not talking about a smoking ban. We are talking about an administration using people’s dislike, hate, and fear of tobacco smoke to push a political agenda, to force and indoctrinate their life style standards onto other people. The article that was posted on the 8 th makes that very clear. C.B. Wilson lists four other universities that the "smoking" task force will be reviewing their "smoke-free or tobacco-free policies". Here is the catch, of all four of those Universities, are all tobacco-free, and not one has just a smoking ban. One of those universities even repeats anti-tobacco/anti- nicotine propaganda that has proven to be misleading or an actual lie. Yet C.B. Wilson feels complained to consider them as a model for our own policies. The same thing was done at HSC; there was a lot of hand waving about Tobacco smoke and it was sold to the campus as a smoking ban, but the policy went well beyond that and banned all tobacco and other nicotine products.Now you tell me, how does a person using a smokeless product for nicotine delivery affect your ability to breathe clean air?