Upon arriving for my first day of class this semester at Northridge, I noticed signs placed all over campus stating that ACC is now "smoke-free". Being a non-smoker, this didn't bother me, but I felt compelled to find out exactly what had happened and why the sudden change. I don't often keep up with Texas state and local politics, so I was unaware that Texas had decided to make all college campuses smoke-free environments.
Personally, I feel that this is a violation of my rights as a Texas citizen. I am of age to smoke legally, so why can't I? The only argument there seems to be is the supposed link between lung cancer and secondhand smoke. While I don't deny that lung cancer is a very serious disease, cigarette smoke doesn't even come close to accounting for half of lung cancer cases across America.
I recently read an article published in November of 2011 titled, "Anyone can get lung cancer". The article's main focus is on lung cancer and how terrible the disease is, but this article points out that cigarette smoke is not the only thing that can cause lung cancer. A person can be at a higher risk of the disease simply because a family member, like a mother, father, or grandparent, had it. Or perhaps a person has been exposed to radiation, asbestos, certain toxins, or pollution in the air. Austin may be "greener" than most cities in Texas, but if texans are all for the smoking bans because of the risks associated with disease, why are we not shutting down factories that produce mass amounts of pollution? Why are we not banning any and all vehicles that are not "green" and safe for the air and environment? The problem is that people won't do that because forcing others to quit smoking and violating their rights as individuals is easier. People always want to blame someone else and take the easy way out if it means their life doesn't have to change.
Now, let's go back, for a moment, to this secondhand smoke issue. It has been drilled into my head from childhood that secondhand smoke is just as big a risk as if you smoke cigarettes yourself. I disagree. In 1998, there was a study posted in the Journal of the National Cancer Institue that showed "weak evidence" supporting a link between lung cancer and secondhand smoke. This same study showed, with great evidence, that there is little to no relationship between the two. The problem is that as soon as the masses hear "evidence", they jump on the bandwagon and decide that it must be true. Everyone is so afraid of the big C, and it comforts people to believe that they can prevent it. Unfortunately, you can live a healthy life and still end up with cancer. You can even be born with cancer! Our fight should be against any and all diseases... Not against a person's right to live their life their own way.
So long as tobacco companies are still producing cigarettes, I should be allowed to smoke if I should choose to do so. I'm 24 and am well aware of the risks, so why can't I make that choice for myself? No one should be forced to do what society thinks is "right" if its not what you or I view as right for ourselves. The fact that Texas has adopted this whole "smoke free Texas" thing shows me that tomorrow I might wake up to find that I can't eat fast food because of the fat content and it's relation to heart disease. Or that sugar will be outlawed because of its relation to diabetes. And at the rate we're going, those things are not as far fetched as they may seem.
Alison wrote an article, Smoke And Mirrors, on the ban against smoking on college campuses in Texas. I believe Alison wrote this article for other college students who are enjoying the freedoms of college life. As much as I appreciate Alison's drive for individual rights for Texans, I do not agree with her statements declaring there is no concrete evidence that second-hand smoke causes cancer. Also, I do not agree with her frustration for smoke-free college campuses.
ReplyDeleteI was a smoker for 10 years, but I am ecstatic that the state has decided to put everyone's health before a smoker's convenience and made all campuses smoke-free environments. Alison quotes and links an article stating, "Anyone can get lung cancer", which I completely agree with. There are many different causes of lung cancer, but to make it seem as though smoking does not have much to do with it seems careless. The same article she quoted says, "Avoiding tobacco use remains at the top of the prevention list. If you don't smoke, don't start. If you do smoke, quit." Avoiding tobacco is at the top of the list for a reason, and for non-smokers to completely avoid it we cannot allow smokers to puff away wherever they please. The same article does state that 65% of new diagnoses to lung cancer patients did not smoke when diagnosed, but it also said "or quit decades ago" which means they did at one time. Additionally, the article doesn't say anything about whether or not the 65% were exposed to second-hand smoke, but it does insist to "stay away from secondhand smoke".
According to the European Respiratory Society, the tobacco industry has been trying to cover up and downplay the effects of second-hand smoke for quite some time. In the 1970s, most of the research done on the affects of smoking and passive smoking (aka second-hand smoke) was funded by the tobacco industry. "However, when the first conclusive studies started to provide decisive evidence that non-smokers' exposure to tobacco smoke significantly increases the risk of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, the industry abruptly escalated its attacks, mobilizing all its firepower against the research and the scientist who had conducted it."
Due to these reasons, I have to disagree with Alison and side with the state that creating a smoke-free environment at all college campuses is a brilliant way to keep Texans healthier.
You said the article I used made no statements about what percentage of lung cancer cases were a result of secondhand smoke, but it did. The article clearly stated that 65% of new lung cancer cases are completely unrelated to tobacco smoke which includes secondhand smoke from cigarettes and cigars. Also, I do not deny that smoking poses health risks, but the anti-tobacco groups that are fighting for a smoke-free Texas are focusing on how terrible secondhand smoke is for individuals and that it is the number one cause of lung cancer to non-smokers when it isn't. If health is the goal, many other things should be done to aid the prevention of illness. Unfortunately, those things aren't being done. People will make easy sacrifices that do not relate to their life at all instead of doing what is necessary to help by changing their own ways. We should all be working harder and making sacrifices if healthier air is the goal. That was the first point I made in my entry. I also found no evidence of tobacco companies funding the studies I read in regard to the secondhand smoke issue.
DeleteThe second, and most important, point of this entry was not "for other college students who are enjoying the freedoms of college life". I wrote this for any and all Texas citizens who feel their freedoms and rights are being violated by being told when, where, and how to do things that they are legally entitled to do. As I said in my entry, at this rate the government will take away more and more choices that should remain ours to make.
Perhaps I shouldn't have focused so much on the second-hand smoke issue, as it is a very touchy subject, but the point remains... People will jump on any solution to a problem so long as it means not having to sacrifice their own way of life, and the government will say whatever they need to rob us of freedoms and choices that they have no business controlling.
I don't intend this response to cause a debate between us. I just felt it necessary to elaborate further on my position.
In response to a classmate’s blog entry “Smoke and Mirrors”, I believe our state is doing a great thing by banning smoking in public places, especially college campuses. Every time I’ve walked around the Rio Grande campus, I’m overwhelmed with how many students are smoking. Taking into consideration the constant reminders on television, radio, and print of how dangerous and damaging cigarettes are, I’m shocked to see the ineffectiveness of these warnings. If graphic commercials of ex-smokers with holes in their necks won’t have an impact, banning the habit from public places is the only option.
ReplyDeleteI have to say I strongly disagree with my classmate’s claim of smoke-bans violating the rights of citizens. Being of the legal age to smoke cigarettes does not justify the act of doing it in public. Secondhand smoke has been proven to cause damage to the lungs and many nonsmokers find the smell unpleasant. In addition to that, I have to mention the published statistics on lung cancer deaths linked to smoking. Coming from a government regulated website, the National Cancer Institute has stated that between 80 to 90 percent of fatal lung cancer cases were a result of cigarette smoking.
An excellent point was brought up in the blog entry discussing the pollution problem. It would be quite the accomplishment if cities could figure out an alternative to the factories producing massive amounts of air toxins, but realistically, the negative effects of pollution aren’t as apparent as cigarette smoke. If there were published reports of 500,000 deaths occurring each year directly caused by pollution, then people might become a bit more interested in preserving the cleanliness of the air. Until then, we’re moving forward as a community by banning smoking in public places.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/tobacco/smoking
And who's to say that the governement funded studies on the government website aren't biased results? Also, 65% of lung cancer cases are NOT from cigarette smoke, so actually, people are ignoring the bigger picture and are choosing to focus on less than half of the issue.
DeleteWhy Your Secondhand Smoke Shouldn't Affect Me: Part 1
ReplyDeleteOne of the entries, Smoke and Mirrors, in the blog A Little, Blue Dot in a Big, Red State's focuses on the argument that banning smoking in public places, specifically college campuses, is a way of controlling how people are able “to live their life their own way.”
The writer seems to be directing this entry to students at college campuses, mainly the students that smoke cigarettes. The blog entry turns to a much broader topic of freedom and being able to make your own decisions, and do whatever you want whenever you want, no matter the effect on the people around you. Even though the writer is not a smoker, the issue seems to be very important to her. This seems to bring in a contradiction; there are many other topics related to freedom that she could focus on and that would be more personal to her, which might convince the reader more to agree.
The argument is first focused on the “violation of my rights as a Texas citizen,” and on secondhand smoke being the reason behind the banning of smoking in public places; the writer claims this isn't a credible reason because apparently most cases of lung cancer do not come from cigarette smoke. The author says that people can be at more risk to get cancer from their genetics or from being exposed to other dangers in the world that also lead to cancer. The article's main focus is to say that there should be no ban on smoking cigarettes anywhere because she believes it is her right to chose to smoke, and because tobacco companies still produce cigarettes, so she should be able to do what she wants with them.
The first mention of evidence is an article called, “Anyone can get lung cancer.” She uses this article to point out how horrible lung cancer is, and how it is caused by other factors than just cigarettes and secondhand smoke; also to prove the point that the majority of lung cancer cases are not related to cigarettes. This is a true statement, but in the referenced article it states that 65% of diagnosed lung cancers are from other factors than smoking, which still leaves 35% being cigarette related. To me that is still a significant number, and doesn't help the argument. I think the writer's use of this article as evidence doesn't actually support her argument. The article completely doesn't support her message when it says that, “Avoiding tobacco use remains at the top of the prevention list. If you don't smoke, don't start. If you do smoke, quit. Get help if you need it. If you are a smoker or former smoker, early detection is key to reducing lung cancer's death rate. Stay away from secondhand smoke. Work to make your home and community smoke free.”
Then the blog goes more into the relation of secondhand smoke to lung cancer, and uses evidence from a study, posted in 1998, stating there was “weak evidence supporting a link between lung cancer and secondhand smoke.” Supporting your argument with an article from 1998 isn't using the most factual and up to date evidence; it does not take into account what has changed in studies since then.
Why Your Secondhand Smoke Shouldn't Affect Me: Part 2
ReplyDeleteI found plenty of evidence saying the opposite in articles that were last medically reviewed and revised in 2011. In an article from The American Cancer Society, it says “Secondhand smoke is classified as a 'known human carcinogen' (cancer-causing agent) by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization. Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemical compounds. More than 250 of these chemicals are known to be harmful, and at least 69 are known to cause cancer. Secondhand smoke has been linked to lung cancer. There is also some evidence suggesting it may be linked with childhood leukemia and cancers of the larynx (voice box), pharynx (throat), brain, bladder, rectum, stomach, and breast.” Also the article states that secondhand smoke each year has caused about 3,400 nonsmoking adults to die of lung cancer as a result of breathing secondhand smoke, worse asthma and asthma related problems in up to 1 million children, and between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in children under 18 months of age, and lung infections resulting in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations each year in the United States alone. One fact that really stood out to me in the above was that there have been found at least 69 chemicals in secondhand smoke that are known to cause cancer.
There are many points of the blog that make me wonder what they have to do with the argument that the writer is trying to make. When she says, “I am of age to smoke legally. So why can't I?,” my response to that is, “You can!” Just because there are bans to stop you from smoking around others does not mean by any means you can't actually smoke yourself. She also says that it is easier to force people to quit smoking (than take other measures to protect health), which again is beside the point and not true at all. I haven't seen or heard where Americans are being forced to quit smoking. It is also said in the blog that, “Everyone is so afraid of the big C, and it comforts them to believe that they can prevent it.” Lung cancer can be prevented; yes, it can also be caused by other factors, but for the people that won't get cancer from these other factors, it is still a known fact that one way to lessen the risk of lung cancer is by avoiding cigarette smoke.
There are another couple of arguments that are made in the blog that don't make sense. First, there is the statement that, just because tobacco companies produce cigarettes, people should be allowed to smoke them; this is irrelevant, because nobody is saying it is illegal to smoke if you are of age. The actual statement is also not a valid argument, because the fact that something is being produced doesn't mean it is right. For example, just because guns are being produced doesn't mean you can shoot them anywhere and put others in danger just because you have one. The last statement of the blog is my last to criticize. When she says, “I might wake up to find that I can't eat fast food because of the fat content and its relation to heart disease,” this again has nothing to do with the point, because an individual eating fast food and putting it into his own body will never affect the well-being and livelihood of another individual's life and body.
In no way do the arguments in this blog convince me that there is something wrong with banning cigarette smoking in public places, where people would be put in a situation of inhaling smoke they wish not to. I believe that if there is a chance, even a small chance, of harming one or more people because of my actions, then there is something wrong. Situations like this will never be something I will agree with. Sometimes you have to think of others and the logic behind a restriction.
I think you should read the responses to the other comments. I believe that my points would make more sense to you then. You, like another person who commented my entry, have completely wrong assumptions about my target audience and the points I was trying to make, but you definitely made a lot of valid points. While my opinion on the smoking ban still remains what it is, you've given me a lot to consider. Thanks. :)
DeleteWe are all free to choose what we do with our bodies, in this the author is correct, however the lack of recognition the effects of second hand smoking can have on non-smokers is astounding. While it is true that a person can live a healthy lifestyle and get cancer, I see no reason for that person chances to increase, no matter how slight that increase may be, because someone wants to light up. Even if cigarette smoking only accounts for less than fifty percent of lung cancer in the United States, if my risk of contracting it is raised, even in the slightest, then that is unfair to me. For as much as smokers have a right to smoke, I have the right to breathe smoke free air.
ReplyDeleteAnother fact the author fails to realize is that, as citizens of America, we are free to do what we want however, business owners and managers are also free to disallow behavior they dislike on their property. Bars, schools and churches have recently started voluntarily banning smoking in their establishments. Because this property is owned or managed by them, they are within their rights to prohibit smoking in or on their establishments. I appreciate these places taking precautions to protect my health.
One of the most important things we should remember is that we are completely free. No one can force us to attend ACC or to patronize a certain business. If we do not approve of the rules of any establishment, we can choose not to support them. We can choose not to attend classes at ACC and, instead, to take online classes so that we may smoke at our leisure. Personally, I am not a smoker. I am allergic to the smoke in the air and lung cancer runs in my family which makes me more susceptible to contracting the disease from second hand smoke. I appreciate that certain businesses value my health and will continue to patronize them to show my support.
I do agree that this is not a decision that should be made by our legislature; however, the smoking ban in Austin was put on the ballot and passed by 52% of the vote. While this is not a large percent it is still a majority. Smoking was not declared illegal by the Texas government. In fact, just this week, the University of Texas voluntarily banned smoking on their campus. One of the reasons as quoted by Patt Clubb, vice president of university operations, was "This is an institution of higher education, so it's logical that we emphasize education, awareness..." I am glad that this university, as well as our own college campus, recognize the effects that second hand smoking can have on non-smokers.
If one does not agree with the decisions of an establishment, not only can they choose not to patronize said establishment but they can also vote. If you passionately believe in something, then talk to your representatives and get it put on a ballot. Find support in others who think as you do and get them to the ballot box. That is the beauty of democracy, if you don’t like something, you can actually do something to change it.
The blog, Smoke and Mirrors, by Alison stayed mainstream in settling into more of a "freedom" type of approach, but I do not think the Smoke-Free Texas campaign is trying to take away the liberties or freedoms of a smoker as much as it is trying to provide the "freedom"or "liberty" to others to choose whether they want to be around secondhand smoke or not. In the blog she states, "No one should be forced to do what society thinks is "right" if its not what you or I view as right for ourselves." I found it counterintuitive to make such a statement without thinking about the person having to inhale the secondhand smoke. I do not smoke, and I do not think I should have to share the clean air with a smoker. She then goes on to say, "The fact that Texas has adopted this whole "smoke free Texas" thing shows me that tomorrow I might wake up to find that I can't eat fast food because of the fat content and it's relation to heart disease." I understand where she is trying to go with this, but smoking and fast food are two very different subjects. If you CHOOSE to eat fast food you are only harming yourself and no one else around you, but if you CHOOSE to smoke outside the person next to you is affected.
ReplyDeleteMy main argument with the blog/article is that secondhand smoke leading to or not leading to cancer is a very debated topic depending on where your information is found. It is also a little more complicated than "just secondhand smoke leads to cancer". According to the American Cancer Society's Facts on Secondhand Smoke "Secondhand smoke is classified as a “known human carcinogen” (cancer-causing agent) by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization.
Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemical compounds. More than 250 of these chemicals are known to be harmful, and at least 69 are known to cause cancer.
SHS has been linked to lung cancer. There is also some evidence suggesting it may be linked with childhood leukemia and cancers of the larynx (voice box), pharynx (throat), brain, bladder, rectum, stomach, and breast."
The EPA, IARC, WHO, National Toxicology Program, and American Cancer Society have enough research to scare me into not wanting my children exposed to secondhand smoke for any length of time if I can prevent it. I feel this law is more about protecting liberties rather than abolishing them. Who is to say you have the right to smoke (even though you are a non-smoker) and my seven week old, six year old or eight year old don't have the right to fresher "immediate"air? It is not only cancer they could contract but asthma or lower respiratory infections.
I think she made good arguments in her favor, but could have made a stronger argument by checking into any and all possible facts. Comparing the freedom to smoke with diabetes and sugar really threw me off. Sugar does not cause diabetes, and there is no correlation with sugar to diabetes especially in Type 1, to expect the world to ban sugar is unrealistic because it is not directly linked to diabetes like secondhand smoke and cancer is linked.
Maybe I am being overly critical because I also feel strongly towards this law, but in some aspects it is a lose-lose law. Both sides of the law are going to feel that they have lost their "freedom"in a sense.