New Mexico Daily Lobo
URL: http://www.dailylobo.com/index.php/article/2010/03/lock_smokers_in_the_basement_for_public_health
Current Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 10:39:37 -0600
Article Tools
Use the form below to share this article via email.
Possibly Related:
Lock smokers in the basement for public health
So let me explain what’s happening here: Chris, the dope who usually writes columns for Friday is probably too busy checking his Facebook while spraying himself with Axe during a “Family Guy” marathon, so I am filling in for him.
My name is Brock Lightstone and when I am not at the gym running miles or sipping some 02 at the oxygen bar, I am campaigning against cigarettes. Let me tell you why. Cigarettes smell gross. They are bad for you. They are bad for other people because of the secondhand smoke. They raise health insurance premiums. And most importantly, they make you look really, really stupid. Smokers are nothing but controlled forest fires.
Now I know what you’re thinking, “But Brock, what right do you have to say these things? Isn’t smoking a choice? Aren’t the studies regarding secondhand smoke questionable, and aren’t there many studies that observed the opposite of what you’ve just said?”
Christ, people, it’s smoke. It’s black, it’s hot and it sure doesn’t belong in your lungs. The only thing that our lungs deserve is the clean air that floats amid the factories’ billowing chemical clouds. Now that I’ve told you how terrible smoking is, let’s talk about what needs to be done. UNM is off to a good start, corralling all the smokers into special spots where the nonsmokers can jeer them and where the secondhand smoke gets all intensified such that anyone walking through it immediately gets cancer. But we need better results.
Just looking at smoke will give you retinal cancer. And feeling that smoke on my skin, is giving me skin cancer. We need more drastic measures, but since we are all about personal liberties and stuff like that, let’s move the smokers underground with airtight doors so that all their filthy smoke stays on them. But then they’ll reek worse, so let’s just make sure they have to go to night classes and we, the people who choose not to defile our body with a heated stimulant relaxant, get to enjoy the benefits of daytime classes.
Now, the smokers might protest and say something like, “But Brock, we pay taxes just like everyone else. In fact, we pay more than everyone else because of the increased taxes on cigarettes. Shouldn’t we be allowed to use public facilities?”
To the wheezing smoke bags — SHUT UP! Smoking is bad for you and it smells bad and it paints your lungs black, so you don’t get a choice as far as the public is concerned. Just stop complaining because you’re destroying my health and the health of everyone around you in addition to all the poor puppies and kittens that have to breathe in your fumes — you sputtering, filthy chimney.
The UNM community is still not doing enough. With smokers gone there’s no reason for us to stop legislating laws for things we morally disapprove of. You know what else I find morally deplorable? Chewing gum! It makes annoying sticking and popping sounds. I could step on the gunk and injure myself — plus chomping on gum poses a choking hazard, so it should be outlawed too, right?
Of course, I’m right! Let’s give them the same treatment as the smokers. We’ll only allow gum chewing in specific areas so we don’t have to deal with the smacking sounds or the litter associated with those sugar chomping nut jobs. After a while, when we no longer have anybody to persecute, we’ll jack the tax up on packets of gum because if they are going to have such a filthy habit the pink-tongued fools should pay for it. Eventually, when we realize that gum smacking leads to secondhand noise damage that may result in ear cancer, we move the sugared-out smackers down into the dungeons with the smokers.
But why stop there? With this power to banish things we hate, we can get rid of anyone we disapprove of. I also hate people who eat with their mouths open. The sight of partly chewed food may lead to choking hazards for that person, the people around him and, of course, the children that might think that sort of thing’s OK. Again, let’s lock those suckers up and charge them a fine for every time their mouths droop too low while chewing.
For that matter, let’s fine bad dancers too. They might hit someone with their misplaced dance steps and flailing arms.
Don’t forget the people talking too loud on their cell phones in public venues. It’s gross that I should have to hear about how you boned your boyfriend for the first time last night.
How about making it illegal to slurp drinks unless in designated slurping areas? That sound’s so disgusting someone might blow an artery having to listen to that on a regular basis.
With our newfound power to legislate away things that bother us — no minor annoyance or personal right stands in the way of our subjective ideas of comfort because that’s the way it works in America. If something is deemed unsavory, we just make it illegal.
Brock Lightstone knows he’s better than you and everyone else and isn’t afraid to say it. Send him an e-mail — if you dare — at Opinion@dailylobo.com
- Most skaters don’t deserve unfair scofflaw stereotype 3 comments
- English professor files for mistrial 4 comments
- Sandia’ s shoddy nuclear landfill poisoning city 4 comments
- Suspension of Disbelief 15 comments
- Market anarchy best serves human nature 3 comments
- UNM is messed up on English professor files for mistrial
The Lobo printed tons of articles regarding what ... - DAMIAN on An extra day off would fix many of life’s ills
Oh, so wait, the internet, as we see it today. ... - damian on An extra day off would fix many of life’s ills
Here you go little halfling, maybe this will ... - Frodo on An extra day off would fix many of life’s ills
Poor damian. He does not realize how foolish ... - Greg on Most skaters don’t deserve unfair scofflaw stereotype
Mr. Halliburton's email reveals a common misconception ...
- Donors running out of time 05/07/12 2:33am
- Armageddon will be due to ignorance, not moths 05/07/12 2:31am
- Most skaters don’t deserve unfair scofflaw stereotype 05/07/12 2:30am
- Beer pong photos deprived better sports of limelight 05/07/12 2:29am
- Lobos lose 6-0 lead, game 05/07/12 2:28am
Upcoming Events
5:00 pm | Hebrew Conversation Class: Beginning
7:00 pm | Poetry Feature & Open Mic
8:00 pm | Changeling the Lost
8:00 am | Emergency Medical Technician (EMT)
5:00 pm | Lobo Campus Civitan Club
9:00 pm | Ska Reggae Funk Rock
No events for this date
7:00 pm | Werewolf The Forsaken
The Independent Voice of University of New Mexico since 1895
The Daily Lobo is published by the students of the University of New Mexico. Please visit our About Us page for contact information.
©2012 New Mexico Daily Lobo
25 comments
nerysceres
Flag this comment
You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price from http://bit.ly/atGzeD
harleyrider1978
Flag this comment
Yes…the 1992/93 EPA report was thrown out by a judge for fudging the numbers. Essentially, the standard for scientific significance which demonstrates if a variable has an effect at all was lowered. But the judge’s ruling doesn’t stop the anti-smoking advocates from citing bad science.
Here’s some other findings that have been taken so far out of context it defies the imagination:
Read more …
2006 Surgeon General’s Report (excerpts)
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke and female fertility or fecundability. No data were found on paternal exposure to secondhand smoke and male fertility or fecundability.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and spontaneous abortion.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and neonatal mortality.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and cognitive functioning among children.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and behavioral problems among children.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and children’s height/growth.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and childhood cancer.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke during infancy and childhood cancer.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between parental smoking and the natural history of middle ear effusion.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and an increase in the risk of adenoidectomy or tonsillectomy among children.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking and the onset of childhood asthma.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and the risk of immunoglobulin E-mediated allergy in their children.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of stroke.
Studies of secondhand smoke and subclinical vascular disease, particularly carotid arterial wall thickening, are suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and atherosclerosis.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among persons with asthma.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among healthy persons.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and chronic respiratory symptoms.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in persons with asthma.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in healthy persons.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a worsening of asthma control.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
And finally…..
The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and odor annoyance.
Source: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondh…
Ex-Smoker
Flag this comment
Oh please, Chris/Brock, give harleyrider1978 yet another forum to spew is unsupportable pro-smiking stance. Yawn. Not funny, even cleverly written…
Ex-Smoker
Flag this comment
…that should read NOT even cleverly written.
smoky herb
Flag this comment
Ex-Smoker sounds like they need a cigarette…I liked the article and thought it was more clever than most. Probably people with a sense of humor should be outlawed and stuck in the basement, too.
Ex-smoker
Flag this comment
Doesn’t there have to be something funny FIRST in order to display a sense of humor? If I need a cigarette, I have only to venture forth onto our smoke-free main campus and breathe the smoke deom all the non-smoking-area-complaint students, et al… I hope next week without students is better/more clear. One can only hope.
trabajador
Flag this comment
You know, it’s gotten to the point where when I see the picture of Quintana’s mug looking back at me from the Daily LoboOpinion page I know I’m in for a poorly written, unorganized, uncritical rant. In this case, add “tired out argument” to the list. Yes I know Mr. Qunintana (oh yea, Brock- right), banning smoking from campus will lead to an army of “behavior cops” that will try to rule every aspect of our lives! Our freedoms will be a thing of the past! The government (and the UNM administration) is out of control! The only group I might add to the list of those in peril (gum chewer’s, people who eat with their mouth open, bad dancers, etc) might be egotistical young journalists who love seeing their picture in the paper, write clichéd diatribes, and then say “I’ll keep talking and maybe you’ll just get it.” Let’s lock THEM in the basement!
@ trabajador
Flag this comment
You forgot to add petty online anonymous commenters in danger of being locked in basements.Otherwise, good point.
Huh trabajador????
Flag this comment
N Campus is compliant AND smoke-fee and I don’t see them losing all their human rights. They simply have a smoke-free campus where I can walk around a BREATHE. I forget: what is cancer causing about gum chewing, eating with open mouth and bad dancers? Sheesh… You can’t even stay on topic…
Chadwick Johnstone
Flag this comment
Got about 1/3 through before I got bored and committed suicide for having read that much. Thanks Chris for another dumb article. I’d rather read about Hunter Riley’s sexual experiences with domesticated animals.
JSR
Flag this comment
Lock the author of this rabid prejudiced closed-minded regressive editorial in the basement & let him stew in his own juices!
Lennon
Flag this comment
i literally cannot read any more of the articles chris writes. not only does he make unsupported points. he is not funny and many times the grammar and writing style is worse than the people who make comments on the articles. no one cares chris.
harleyrider1978
Flag this comment
A letter from a cancer researcher at the cancer society
I’m Robert E. Madden MD, FACS. I am also a non-smoker. HOWEVER I am a passionate opponent smoking bans. Most of the opposition to the smoking bans has been based upon economic factors such as loss of business revenue, even closings. My opposition is due to loss of individual freedom and abuse of scientific fact.
Read more …
I am a practicing chest surgeon, a teacher and a former cancer researcher. I am also past president of the NY Cancer Society. I will not tell you that smoking is harmless and without risk, in fact one in eight hundred smokers will develop lung cancer. Asthmatics should avoid tobacco smoke. What I will say is: 1) it’s a personal choice and 2) so called second smoke (ETS) is virtually harmless. One may not like the smell but it has not been shown to cause cancer, even in bartenders. If people do not like the odor then they may go elsewhere. Those who support the ban have no right to deny 24% of the adult population their enjoyment of a popular product based on dislike, possibly hatred of smoking. This attitude is that of a bigot, akin to anti-Semitism or racism.
To me the most offensive element of the smoking bans is the resort to science as “proving that environmental smoke, second hand smoke, causes lung cancer”. Not only is this unproven but there is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for a scientist like myself to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society (of which I am a member) and the American Lung Association used to justify what is best described as a political agenda. Smokers enjoy smoking. Most non-smokers are neutral. Anti-smokers hate smoking. It is this last group that drives the engine of smoking bans. Smoking sections in restaurants, ventilated bars and the like have been satisfactory and used for years. To those who choose to smoke they do so at their own risk. To those eschew smoking let them patronize establishments whose owners prohibit smoking. To impose a city wide or a state wide ban is to deny people of their rights.
Respectfully,
Robert E. Madden, M.D
Nahum Castillo
Flag this comment
The only part of the article that made any sense to me and agree with is the sencond to the last paragraph: “With our newfound power to legislate away things that bother us — no minor annoyance or personal right stands in the way of our subjective ideas of comfort because that’s the way it works in America. If something is deemed unsavory, we just make it illegal.”
I stopped smoking in 1970. However, I concur with Dr. Robert Maden’s view on the smoking issue.
Jean-Luc Picard
Flag this comment
Ha ha ha ha, Chris.
I’m laughing so hard my sides are hurting. Not.
Read more …
Too stylistically similar to pull off a pseudonym, best off posting drunk.
Solo
Flag this comment
GASP!(coughcoughcoughhackspit) But Chris we smokers create so much employment! Think of the reduction in the sign making revenues! The lack of subject matter for editorial writers resulting in fewer writing jobs! The state legislators that would have no reason to go into special session, thus the reduction in tax revenue! We create jobs in Healthcare which requires more people to be trained in the field which creates more teaching positions and revenue from enrollment to colleges and universities! I beg you man, rethink your position! And by the way BO from runners ain’t exactly a walk in a rose garden. Enjoyed the article. Gonna go have a smoke now.
docsavage
Flag this comment
Way to go, Chris! Now turn your attention to alcohol. You can start with the direct causal link between a drunk’s front bumper and your head. Yet the state legislature is considering another $1 tax on cigarettes (that’ll show those lungers!).
I’ll see you all on Saint Patty’s Day. Or I won’t – I’ll be cowering in my house.
Read more …
For shame!
Jean-Luc Picard
Flag this comment
@Solo: did you shoot first?
Oh wait, that is inappropriate.
Read more …
Rather, Solo, did you “smoke” first? Because personally I prefer my smokes set to stun, sometimes to kill, and sometimes even like to bounce them off the deflector dish when I’m bored.
smoky herb
Flag this comment
One thing we got out of this editorial and the comments is a new expression: “lock them in the basement”. It could be handy.
Huh?
Flag this comment
Madden: I will not tell you that smoking is harmless and without risk, in fact one in eight hundred smokers will develop lung cancer. Asthmatics should avoid tobacco smoke. What I will say is: 1) it’s a personal choice and 2) so called second smoke (ETS) is virtually harmless.
Huh? What about all the studies that show that people who live with smokers have asthma, lung challenges and the like? Some even got lung cancer. I’d say Madden is at least as unscientific as he accueses others of being…
U Never Mind
Flag this comment
The majority of people in this country do not smoke and that majority wants public smoking banned. Has it never occurred to that majority to petition their lawmakers on their behalf? Simply criminalize tobacco and then the problem will be solved like it is with pot, heroin, cocaine, etc…
Right?
Read more …
Now THAT’s some satire right there.
Gee Whiz, why didn't we think of that?!!!
Flag this comment
Because “Never U Mind” or whatever you call yourself, BIG money will NOT let that poison go quietly into the night. Big Tobacco pays their lobby-ists to ensure that they can continue to market their poison, regardless of what the majority wants or how unsafe the product is. It’s Big Tobacco’s cash cow and they won’t allow anyone to kill off their industry. What are a few dead millions of people? Especially millions of WILLING victims! Just so long as Big Tobacco can make their dirty dough, all’s well. It doesn’t matter that if cigs were new to the market and someone tried to get them approved TODAY that they would NEVER meet any safety standards and could NOT be approved for sale in this day and age…. Nope, what matters is the almighty buck and the fact that smokers are willing victims. It’s one of the major reasons I quit: I’m nobody’s patsy. Why should I PAY to have someone murder me slowly? I just couldn’t participate in my own enslavement that way, so I did the difficult withdrawal thing cold turkey and moved on….
Marlboro Man
Flag this comment
Gee Whiz: you’ll make an excellent comedian.
GoesToSchool
Flag this comment
Funny article..
I don’t agree 100% what you are saying however,
i really hate that when i am walking to class, walking to my car, walking into my house, driving my car, someone near is smoking. i don’t smoke in your face why should you smoke in my face. Who cares if you smoke. Honestly i could care less if you killed yourself smoking or jumped off a cliff.. either way youre going to die. However i just dont want in blown in my face. So how do prevent this. Its not just a nucense, its health hazard and no different than someone busting ass in class. i dont want to smell that eaither. Fart and smoke in your own areas.
Gee Whiz
Flag this comment
Thanks, Marlboro Man. I’m so glad I can amuse you. I pray you bear no resemblance to the real Marlboro Man, you know, the actor from the commercials that died a miserable death from cancer. And that was AFTER he had his voice box removed, etc. What a horrible way to go, and so avoidable. I hope and pray you figure it out before it’s too late.
GoesToSchool, you had me up until the fart comment. Dumb, dumb dumb and so immature. Farts don’t kill. Passive smoke and smoking does.
Comments are closed for this item.