I think trying to rid the world of secondhand smoke is just as important as the next guy does, but if someone is so close to a smoker that said smoker can blow smoke in said person’s face, then that person might want to take a few steps back.
Also, does President Lee Todd know that the Constitution exists? If someone chooses to smoke, you can’t just take away that right. I don’t even smoke, but smokers are already forced to go outside, and what’s the difference if someone smokes in front of their dorm, or next to the Whitehall Classroom Building instead of going out to the middle of Limestone to smoke?
This is ridiculous, especially in a state that thrives off of the sale of tobacco products. The history of this fine state was made in the tobacco fields. This ban is an infringement on rights, and a slap in the face to all those hard working men and women who try to make a dollar growing this cash crop and have been doing so all their lives.
Matt Peach
undecided freshman
Matt, I think you’ll find that your remarks will inspire some rather unwelcome attacks. If you go to http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/257.html and read the “Stiletto” booklet you’ll find there I think it might help: it’s short, it’s one-sided, but it’s honest and accurate and it has never been substantively challenged by anyone despite numerous invitations to mount such challenges.
If you want more detailed information that opposes smoking bans I’d recommend either my book or Jacob Sullum’s. Both provide well-referenced and strong background to the conflict, although from somewhat different perspectives: Sullum’s is more historical, mine is more based in psychology, propaganda analysis, and science. Both should be available at your college library or through Amazon. You might also want to check a website set up by PA University students fighting a ban at:
http://www.shipsmokeout.com/
Best of luck in paving the road of reason. Unfortunately I think you’ll find it about as peaceful as a road through Iraq.
:/
Michael J. McFadden,
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
UK can set dictate what goes on within the bounds of their property. Plain and simple.
Let me preface this by saying that I’m neither for nor against the smoking ban. I frankly don’t really care who smokes where, so long as my clothes don’t smell like smoke the day after (not to much to ask is it?).
“Also, does President Lee Todd know that the Constitution exists? If someone chooses to smoke, you can’t just take away that right.”
This is, perhaps, one of the least thought out remarks in the history of the Kernel’s opinions page. You should know by now that I’m one of Dr. Todd’s staunchest critics, and I rarely give him a free pass – but what in the world does the constitution have to do with this? Where in the constitution does it enumerate the rights of smokers? Even if I don’t believe a smoking ban to be some kind of draconian measure terrorizing the rights of the poor abused smoking population, don’t pretend that such one-sided measures aren’t perfectly in line with the historical tendencies of our nation. If you think that is bullshit, argue about overarching political philosophy and not about something the constitution doesn’t say.
Someone please show me where the “right to smoke: exists in the constitution. It does not. Bans have been challenged in court in many cities and states. They are always found to be constitutional. Smoking is not some kind of protected behaviour.
“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ” is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the “inalienable rights” of man.
Either make it illegal to own/posses/grow. Otherwise you are stepping on one of my inalienable rights.
Um, Chris — wouldn’t making it illegal to own/grow also step on your “inalienable” rights. Shwew, the lack of logic on this board.
Well Mr. Darby there you go…………….if they had balls enough to make it illegal anti-smokers would MAYBE have a valid argument. But they haven’t and you don’t. Shwew, how is your logic now Mr. Wizard!
yeah, ignore the second paragraph if you will ;)
I am a wizard. Don’t you forget it.
the point I was trying to say is that we all have the right to choose what we do with our bodies, and it shouldn’t be allowed for UK to try and control the lifestyles of students.
I would agree with Matt if only smoking affected the individual who chooses to smoke.
Matt,
It is the second paragraph (if you will) that is absurd. Have you ever read the constitution? Please show me where the constitution guarantees your right to smoke on campus. UK isn’t tell you what to do with your bodies, they are telling you what not to do while you’re on their campus. That is a PROFOUNDLY different thing.
And to reiterate the point here: You asked if President Todd knows that there exists something called the Constitution. I ask if you’ve ever read it. Whether your answer is yes or no to that, I would kindly ask you show me what part of the constitution would prevent UK from making an anti-smoking policy on their campus. You seem to think that President Todd’s knowledge of the Constitution is of supreme importance on this issue, so I’m sure you will have no problem pointing out what clause would make your point relevant.
Anti-smoking govt officials are generally the same ones who have, for perhaps decades, ignored, permitted, and coldly failed to warn about typical cigarettes that are contaminated with ….
* any of about 450 pesticide residues (not all in one cig, of course),
* any of roughly 1400 untested, often toxic and carcinogenic non-tobacco additives,
* burn accelerants that are complicit in thousands of fires each year,
* addiction-enhancing substances,
* all sorts of kid-attracting sweeteners, flavors, aromas, and soothing substances,
* dioxin-creating chlorine adulterants (pesticides, bleached paper),
* and fake tobacco made, in US Patented ways, from all sorts of waste cellulose materials. (One cannot get dreaded Tobacco Smoke from that.)
And now those officials put on the halo of “no smoking” as they dump all the blame, costs, and legal burdens for the inevitable health problems (most impossible to be caused by smoke from any natural plant) on A) the unwitting, unprotected victims, and B on a “sinful” unpatented natural plant.
Such officials are not champions of health. They are champions of the industries most responsible for harming health via typical “Dioxin Dowels” and elsewhere. They are setting us at each others throats and distracting from their complicity in causing a global health atrocity.
Of course, they are also protecting the cigarette makers from the most serious charges, and protecting the chlorine and pesticide industries, pharmaceuticals that supply additives and pesticides, many additives suppliers, and all of their insurers and investors. Many top health insurers, perhaps campaign funders of anti-smoking legislators, happen to have multi-million dollar investments in none other than top cigarette manufacturers. Such insurers are also “anti smoking” (by the victims) but not Anti-Toxic-Contamination-of-Tobacco..
Follow the money, not the smoke. This is about mass-public-endangerment, even homicide, by corporate/government entities—not about suicide by those who think and are told they’re smoking just tobacco.
Search up the term “Fauxbacco” for plenty more. This is not only about social fracturing—it’s about widespread corruption of science, medicine, journalism, and law.
In terms of the Constitution, I believe the 9th Amendment dealing with “unenumerated rights” is the relevent one here. But it has nothing to do with what happens on a private campus. As I pointed out in the first comment to this article, the Stiletto outlines a lot of good reasons why a smoking ban is a bad move, but the US Constitution isn’t one of them as far as UK is concerned.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Michael,
The 9th amendment says that we shouldn’t take the Constitution’s enumeration of rights to mean that those enumerated are the only rights we have. It says nothing about what those other rights are, and is therefore irrelevant when someone is attempting to use the Constitution as evidence that they have a right to smoke on UK’s campus. Sure, maybe you believe you have a right to smoke on UK’s campus, and maybe you can lobby to have laws enacted that enforce your right, and maybe when you defend those laws in court you will reference the 9th amendment as support for your right that is otherwise not nenumerated in the Constitution.
But you know what? It is still the case that there is NOTHING in the Constitution that claims anyone has a right to smoke on UK’s campus. Period.
Abe, if you read my post a bit more carefully I think you’ll find that I *agree* with you. UK has the right to ban smoking on campus. I may argue that it’s a bad decision or that it has no solid basis in terms of health concerns, but I wouldn’t try to argue that it’s illegal.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
mcFADden
I like how the review of your book is that “it was easy to read.” SCORE! WIN! GO TEAM!
Michael,
I did read your post, and while your conclusion agrees with me, I don’t think it’s a good idea to let the rest of know-nothings on this thread to think that the 9th amendment is relevant to their perceived but utterly non-existent “right to smoke” on UK’s campus. You claimed it was relevant. It is not.
Abe, ok. What I was trying to say is that any discussion of a general “right” to smoke would fall under the 9th Amendment (as opposed to any other part of the Constitution. I *did* however immediately follow up by specifying that it had NOTHING to do with a place like UK banning smoking on its own property. They could ban wearing pink underwear on one’s head if they wanted. Nothing unconstitutional about that! :>
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”