San Diego State University’s Independent Student Newspaper Since 1913

The Daily Aztec

Students should take smoking ban seriously

by Kelly Gardner

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






They are small: about three inches long, rolled with white paper and generally come 20 to a pack. Depending on who you are, they may be considered either a friend or an enemy. I’m talking about cigarettes.

The little sticks of tobacco began their rise in popularity in the early 19th century, but were only smoked, for the most part, by men. The 1920s propelled cigarettes into their full-fledged takeover. Lucky Strike cigarettes realized the necessity of reaching women consumers, and with the help of the slogan “torches of freedom,” they were able to draw them in. As cigarettes finally reached a status of overall acceptance from society, there was little to hold them back from success.

The side effects that they have on peoples health were unknown when cigarettes were gaining popularity. In fact, in the 1920s cases of lung cancer were so rare that medical students were not expected to be able to observe one. Cigarettes’ side effects continued to be revealed throughout the years, and unfortunately the list is not short. Cigarettes alone are associated with causing 11 different types of cancer, cardiovascular disease and other heart problems, multiple respiratory diseases, low bone density, infertility in women, sudden infant death syndrome and death, usually as a result of one of the previously mentioned illnesses.

So why bring this up now? In the 21st century, we are well aware of the health effects that go hand-in-hand with smoking, yet there still seems to be an abundance of smokers. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention there are about 45.3 million adults who smoke in the U.S.—19.3 percent of the total population. There isn’t one specific demographic that smokes more than any other, and as far as studies show, race and gender don’t have a major impact on whether or not a person is likely to be a smoker.

However, recent findings show that the demographic of American smokers between the ages of 18 and 24 may be changing future trends. In 2005, young adult smokers were the largest age group at 24.4 percent; by 2011, that number dropped to 18.9 percent, making them the smallest age group. This may not be the only sign that future trends are changing.

As the health problems associated with smoking have become increasingly prominent throughout the years, more and more people have been coming forward with initiatives to regulate cigarettes and the people who smoke them. The biggest controversy with cigarettes is their toxicity. Not only are they killing the people who willingly smoke them, they are also killing innocent bystanders.

Secondhand smoke is the biggest driver of initiatives to regulate smoking. Not only can secondhand smoke be unpleasant and irritating to others, it can actually kill them. It may sound dramatic, but it’s not. According to the CDC, “secondhand smoke contains more than 7000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer.”

Each year in the U.S., about 46,000 people die prematurely as a result of heart disease from secondhand smoke and another 3,400 die prematurely from lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke. Those deaths represent non-smokers, meaning that it was somebody else’s actions that caused them to die, sort of like when a drunk driver kills a sober driver in a car accident.

Smoking regulations vary drastically state to state, and even county to county. San Diego State considers itself a smoke-free school; however, until recently there were 12 designated smoking areas in which people were allowed to light up. Beginning Jan. 1, SDSU officially became an entirely smoke-free campus, meaning those 12 smoking areas no longer exist. For all you smokers roaming the campus of our beloved school, beware of the changes you will face upon the return of next semester.

I’m not a smoker. I do, however, fully respect the right of every individual to make his or her own decisions. If that involves smoking cigarettes, so be it. I take issue with where the lines are blurred; while it’s an individual’s right to cause harm to his or herself, it isn’t his or her right to cause harm to others. I’m unwillingly being exposed to cigarette toxins when others around me are smoking. For this reason, we need to set some clear boundaries to protect non-smokers. With this new policy, I hope to see a respectful relationship formed between those who smoke and those who choose not to.

Print Friendly

2 Comments

2 Responses to “Students should take smoking ban seriously”

  1. Anthony on January 15th, 2014 2:52 pm

    Hi Kelly,

    I really enjoyed your article on smoking and would love to see an additional article on vaping. Being in the electronic cigarette industry I would love to hear your take on it. Contact me if you are interested 619 820 0491 Anthony

    [Reply]

  2. michaeljmcfadden on April 6th, 2014 5:57 pm

    Kelly, I’m a bit late in seeing this, but wanted to add a comment. Your article is well-written and the first part of it is very well researched and pretty accurate. But several paragraphs near the end have problems that SDS students should be aware of when considering how to respond to this ban.

    You write, “Not only are (cigarettes) killing the people who willingly smoke them, they are also killing innocent bystanders…. Each year in the U.S., about 46,000 people die prematurely as a result of heart disease from secondhand smoke and another 3,400 die prematurely from lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke.”

    You compare those deaths to drunk driving deaths, but you should be aware that the driving deaths result in real, bloody, mangled corpses that can be counted on the roadsides or directly thereafter, while the death numbers for secondary smoke are simply statistical computer constructions from SAMMEC (Statistically Attributable Morbidity, Mortality, and Economic Cost) computer program projections. Their accuracy is very questionable with the real numbers possibly approaching zero. Even if the numbers are indeed accurate, they apply almost solely to the sort of lifelong, daily, constant exposures experienced inside homes and workplaces: they have virtually NO application to the sort of exposures you’d get walking around a smoking campus. E.G., if you apply the EPA figures for lung cancer to a model in which students are “forced” to walk through crowds of smokers around doorways every single day, ten times a day, it would take roughly 25,000,000 student-years on the average for the exposure to produce a single lung cancer.

    You also noted that “secondhand smoke contains more than 7000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer.” A very similar thing (I believe the figure is about 3,000 exhaled VOCs, volatile organic chemical waste products and poisons) can be said for ordinary human breath, although human exhalations also contain millions of deadly and disease-causing bacteria and viruses that are destroyed when filtered through a burning cigarette. Of the 70 that can cause cancer, I’d suggest you check authoritative primary sources on whether you’re talking about cancer in goldfish, hamsters, or human beings. I believe the figure is under a dozen Class A chemicals for humans, again with a number of them being ordinary components of breathing that others are forcing upon you by their presence, and their total mass per cigarette is under a half milligram. An ordinary martini puts out roughly 2,000 times that amount of Class A Carcinogen, ethyl alcohol, in vapor form every hour although you don’t see it and it’s not very noticeable by odor.

    Don’t believe all the propaganda you hear in favor of these bans: their real purpose is social engineering, not protection of nonsmokers’ health. Smoking bans are a form of giving smoking humans little “electric shocks” of unpleasantness/discomfort when they smoke: they’re designed for behavior modification. Behavior modification experiments should be performed on rats. Students are not rats, they should not be treated like rats, and they most DEFINITELY should not accept being treated like rats.

    Michael J. McFadden

    [Reply]

Commenting on our site is a privilege. We want our readers to add their point of view to every story but ask that they keep their comments relevant to the topic at hand. We will remove comments and possibly ban users who do the following: (1) Use vulgar or racist language, (2) Threaten harm of any sort to staff, commenters or the subject of an article, and (3) Leave spam in their comment. If you have questions about these rules, please contact our Editor in Chief at: editor@thedailyaztec.com

If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a gravatar.