Toledo Talk

Student Group set to hand out free cigarettes* to protest University of Toledo tobacco ban

Hey everyone the student group I preside over on the campus of the University of Toledo name The Young Americans for Liberty is having this upcoming protest to protest a recent campus wide tobacco ban. Our reasons for doing so are below and I wanted to get your input on the whole scenario and tell you its happening.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press Advisory

TOLEDO, OH—Next week (Monday, January 24th) the University of Toledo Young Americans for Liberty will be handing out free cigarettes* and collecting signatures for a petition to repeal recent legislation school wide calling for a full tobacco ban on UT's main campus. There is an asterisk by the word cigarette because what we give out will not really be cigarettes but a note rolled into a cigarette shape to illustrate the tobacco ban.

We in the Young Americans for Liberty see this as a large government overreach where the administration is trying to make our school into a Micheal Bloomberg-esch nanny state. It is not the administration's job to decide what legal substances grown adults put into their body nor is it their right to declare the university a tobacco free zone since the school is publicly funded and the administrators do not hold the property right to do so .

In addition to this ban going against student's right to consume legal substances, it also can be viewed in no other way but wasteful. Not even four years prior smoking huts were constructed all over campus at a large expense for smokers due to current smoking regulations which forces them to smoke only in the smoking huts. A majority of smokers keep to these huts and they are far enough out of the way so if someone is to get a lung-full of secondhand smoke they'd have to be quite a ways out of their way to receive it. This total ban will waste these perfectly reasonable smoking shacks the university spent a pretty penny to build.

The third and final strike against this ban is the Obama-esch way it was passed. Because the student body president and other anti-choice school leaders could not pass their draconian ban they had to ignore the student representatives in student government and pass through fiat via the faculty senate. This should make one ponder the question that if the administration isn't going to listen to student government then why do they have it at all.

The students have spoken, they want freedom and their representatives have said so. For more evidence of the unpopularity of this ban please come to our protest and see they massive disdain for the ban among the students.

-Ron Johns, Chapter President
The Young Americans for Liberty at The University of Toledo

When:
Monday, February 24th
10am-1pm

Where:
The University of Toledo
Student Union, by the free speech board
2801 W Bancroft St, Toledo, OH 43606

Who:
The Young Americans for Liberty at the University of Toledo

Note:
-For more information contact Ron Johns at RonJohnsOH@live.com or
(419)-481-3568
-For the best time to interview Ron Johns please come between *10am and
11am *

This event is free and open to the public
###

created by RonJohns on Feb 17, 2014 at 11:08:05 pm     Comments: 65

source      versions


Comments ... #

While I admire your dedication and cause to an extent, handing out free cigarettes just sounds like a bad idea to me. I wish you luck.

posted by hunkytownsausage on Feb 17, 2014 at 11:13:04 pm     #   2 people liked this

Of all the problems facing today's college students, tobacco usage on campus probably doesn't crack the top 100.

posted by JohnnyMac on Feb 17, 2014 at 11:21:50 pm     #   2 people liked this

good lord this is a dumb idea and a waste of everyone's time

posted by nits on Feb 17, 2014 at 11:26:54 pm     #   2 people liked this

good lord this is a dumb idea and a waste of everyone's time

posted by nits on Feb 17, 2014 at 11:26:54 pm     #   5 people liked this

"Bloomberg-esch"
"Obama-esch"

Did you mean "-esque?"

the school is publicly funded and the administrators do not hold the property right to do so

Are you sure that's true? A precedent has been set. Have you seen the list of smoke-free campuses in Ohio and the US? It's pretty long:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoke-free_colleges_and_universities

I'm a smoker myself, and I actually share this disdain for smoking bans. But you can't fight nonsense with easily refuted arguments...

posted by Sohio on Feb 17, 2014 at 11:30:08 pm     #   4 people liked this

hunkytownsausage posted at 10:13:04 PM on Feb 17, 2014:

While I admire your dedication and cause to an extent, handing out free cigarettes just sounds like a bad idea to me. I wish you luck.

As stated in the article above:

"There is an asterisk by the word cigarette because what we give out will not really be cigarettes but a note rolled into a cigarette shape to illustrate the tobacco ban."

posted by justphillips on Feb 18, 2014 at 12:09:01 am     #   1 person liked this

Wouldn't any media worth a rotting damn stop at "TOLEDO, OH—Next week (Monday, January 24th)" ??

Maybe get to proof reading for one, and for second, there are certainly better causes that fall within your expressed domain of concern than smoking ban. Seems almost like you are being given diversion from real issues that are winnable in some degree compared to this which is firmly settled. Of course, I also don't expect Ron Johns to ever poke this forum again, so there is that.

posted by RobJelf on Feb 18, 2014 at 12:09:31 am     #   1 person liked this

In 2011, the official University of North Texas chapter of the YAL protested a potential outdoor smoking ban on campus by handing out cigarettes in an effort to get students to sign a petition opposing the ban.31 When university officials reprimanded them, the group claimed they would seek legal aid and that restrictions on handing out the cigarettes was a violation of their First Amendment rights.32 The group collected 206 signatures for the petition.33

So, what is the major point of contention? Not allowing smoking in designated areas? Nothing prevents students from smoking in other public, off campus spaces, nor their residences. It's almost like smoking has been banned in common spaces elsewhere, and is a fairly acknowledged precedent. Further-the decrease of smokers and new smokers in areas where smoking is made inconvenient! has been significant-as in, some places, smoking has dropped by a third. This should result in lower healthcare costs and a general consensus of increased quality of life for non smokers. Politics of obstruction are quite annoying. Protest something worthwhile for goodness sake. I know you are a college student and trying to figure it out, and idealism is so intoxicating in college. Surely there's an actual injustice happening somewhere.

posted by ahmahler on Feb 18, 2014 at 12:21:14 am     #   2 people liked this

While this may not seem like the biggest issue to a lot of you guys/gals the wrong doing comes in the fact that government should not be given the permission to decide what legal substances grown adults put in their body. This ban in my opinion is no different than Micheal Bloomberg's ban on Big Gulps in New York City or ban on fast food restaurants in a town.

Personally I don't like smoking and think it's gross, however I believe it is every person of age's right to decide if they'd like to do it or not. While a person could leave campus to smoke, at most places around campus it takes at least 5 minutes to get to your car to even drive off the university property and at least 15 minutes to walk off. That's a inconvenience smokers that pay taxes to fund a public institution should not have to deal with.

The real issue of the matter is not over health implications or even over tobacco but is about giving people freedom of choice. If you think tobacco is so bad that people should not be allowed to have it then I guess that's your opinion. But with that opinion you are adopting the stance that you believe government should be allowed to make important health decisions in people's lives and even override decisions made by those people if the government sees it fit. In addition if wish to stay consistent with this belief you must believe that the government should be able to criminalize/limit your consumption of...
-Alcohol
-Fast Food
-Pop
-Junk Food
-Candy
and just about any other slightly bad or even potentially good legal edible substance out there. However to agree its someone's right to do something does not mean you endorse it, but just agree they can do it. For example I believe its your right to sing in public even if you really aren't good at all. That doesn't mean I endorse it or like it but just means I accept it is someone's right and the same argument is in play with this tobacco ban.

posted by RonJohns on Feb 18, 2014 at 01:17:58 am     #  

Disagree-you're allowed to do it, just not in that particular public space. What about the non smokers that pay for the institution that do t want to be near it, or find the butts on the sidewalk? Please keep the "government won't let you do it" argument out of it, because again, smoking will never be illegal. More likely pot smoking will become legal. It will just take some considerate public policy to balance the new freedoms and the public's enjoyment of common spaces. Again, idealism leaves no room for nuance.

Regarding Bloomberg's law, his valid argument was that (after smoking) obesity from such beverages was one of the greatest public costs to uncollected health care. I don't necessarily agree, but it comes for a legitimate, if somewhat laughable, place. Further, it's not like you couldn't drown on high fructose corn syrup you just couldn't do it in one ridiculously sized beverage any more.

This slippery slope mentality is just ridiculous-evolution isn't a slippery slope.

posted by ahmahler on Feb 18, 2014 at 01:30:51 am     #   1 person liked this

_ you must believe that the government should be able to criminalize/limit your consumption of Alcohol_

Government does limit your consumption of alcohol. You're not legally allowed to consume it until you're 21, even though you legally reach adulthood at 18. If you consume too much of it before operating a motor vehicle and are pulled over, you can get in some pretty big trouble.

posted by Sohio on Feb 18, 2014 at 01:36:33 am     #   3 people liked this

Wouldn't be able to smoke pot on campus any more than tobacco, The law as far as I know does not specify what your smoking, only that you are smoking and that it is banned. Didn't they try to ban the E-cigarettes based on the same principle but failed because nothing is actually burning hence its not smoking?

posted by MIJeff on Feb 18, 2014 at 01:37:59 am     #  

I mean ahmahler you could use the same argument for potato chips. You could be annoyed by the crunch of people eating them and waste that comes because people are too lazy to throw out the bag. I'd keep the '"government won't let you do it" argument out ' if they really weren't preventing people from smoking. They are creating a completely unnecessary barrier to so. Also to answer point of people that don't want to smell/breathe the smoke, its not hard for them to avoid the smoking huts.

Regarding Bloomberg's law it's not valid in any degree. It's assuming all people no matter their healthcare coverage produce a burden on the state which isn't true at all. In fact I could argue the government produces a burden on me in terms of healthcare coverage and very successfully.

But see your whole argument is revolving around the fact you think it should be the government's job to make choices for people. However you fail to see those people are just human too and are prone to making mistakes and being corrupt. Therefore if you want someone to make the best choice, let them make it themselves. People will learn quick the consequences of their actions whether that be a heavier version themselves or a lighter version of their wallet. The idea is it should not be your or my decision what someone else does with their life. I'm sure you and every other American would agree with that, right?

posted by RonJohns on Feb 18, 2014 at 01:49:24 am     #  

Can't project annoyance. Legitimate complaints are one thing. If potato chips were a nuisance to a vast majority of the population, then fair game, at the moment, just preposterous, greasy and sloppy analog.

While I can respect divergent opinions-don't ask for feedback if you already have your argument in your pocket, you don't want to listen, you want a platform.

Good luck with your inspiring protest, I'm certain generations will extol the tales of your nobility and freedom bestowing & valor-esque moves.

posted by ahmahler on Feb 18, 2014 at 02:12:37 am     #   1 person liked this

You could be annoyed by the crunch of people eating them and waste that comes because people are too lazy to throw out the bag.

Actually...there's already a law about the waste part. That's littering, and it is illegal in most areas.

posted by Sohio on Feb 18, 2014 at 02:38:19 am     #   2 people liked this

So, my mother was diagnosed with cancer on Friday.

She has been a smoker since high school and 50+ years later (almost 60), here comes the consequence.

While I understand the "its a legal product" argument and wholeheartedly reject the fructose/junk food/no danger fun and good times police (that Bloomberg sums in his persona so well), why make a stand with cigarettes?

They contain nicotine, one of the most addictive substances known to man. They are proven carcinogenic. Some like my mother last 5 or 6 decades. Others get sick much sooner. And you want to give them away because...why?

The food bullshit is totally different. I drink sodas. I eat McDonalds. I am also 6'1" 180lbs, have 168 cholesterol, and don't eat 15 cheeseburgers at a time. There's nothing addictive about frickin' junk food--not like nicotine, no matter how many dubious studies try to say so. Shut your yap, stop eating 18 bags of Cheetos per week and you won't weigh 500lbs and, most likely, your penis won't be orange either.

I begged my mother to quit when I was a kid, only to get the typical angry "I can do what I want"-type response. AKA "it's a legal product." Why do you want to start people down that road?

Hand out literature. Figure out another attention getting device. I am fucking scared to death at 39 that my mother won't be here by the time I turn 41. It is never enough time. And with the plethora of medical knowledge available regarding cigarettes, I find it just dumb that you are considering "free trials" as a protest?

Sorry, all this is academic now. My dad died 8 years ago (also a smoker--aorta hardened to the point where it burst right off his heart one day. Cancer isn't the ONLY side effect of smoking, you know). I'm all for freedom and think that smoke-free campuses are a bit of an overreach (surely there is a place where smokers can convene in an out of the way place). But, for fuck sakes, don't encourage another addict. There are plenty lining up already.

I'm a guy and I'm barely holding it together over this right now. I need to be there for my mom.

posted by oldhometown on Feb 18, 2014 at 03:00:42 am     #   6 people liked this

oldhometown, sorry to hear about that. I have gone through that myself, with two family members. I know what it's like--although neither of my two family members were as close as my own mother. I feel for you.

I'm all for freedom and think that smoke-free campuses are a bit of an overreach

It's odd, isn't it? I agree with that statement too...I really do. But, after you watch a person smoke themselves to death...it sort of gives you a different perspective on the whole thing, right? Not to mention...it's hard to call it "freedom" when you've seen a hardcore tobacco addict in action. It's not freedom, man. It's slavery. You're a slave to a cigarette. I support everyone's right to be that slave if they really want to...but I can't say I celebrate it.

posted by Sohio on Feb 18, 2014 at 03:20:35 am     #  

To introduce a new angle here, some hospital campuses and industrial workplaces now have a complete tobacco ban -- not just "smoking." As an outside contractor required to sit in on safety training in such places, I was told that I couldn't even smoke in my car in their parking lots (or use chewing tobacco or snuff). People are advised to go to the nearest gas station/convenience store on their break time if they want to indulge. You can actually see blobs of spit-out tobacco at the main gate, where workers & visitors do hoark up the 'baccy wads before they enter the property.

I think Flower Hospital in Sylvania has a sign out front that says "Welcome to our tobacco-free campus." In theory, it would be legal sometime in the future to sit in your car and fire up a jay. Because it is Not Tobacco.

I admire your spirit of activism. If you want to make a difference on this issue, please consider expanding your concerns beyond the UT campus. It would be a shame for you guys to prevail at UT and then find out that you have to fight the same battle everywhere else in town.

[I rolled my own cigarets for 15 years, enjoyed every single smoke, had 2 relatives die from emphysema caused by smoking.]

posted by viola on Feb 18, 2014 at 11:31:45 am     #  

I think smoking rates had already been declining for years so why stir something that was self extincting? The more you make things like that illegal the more people want to do them just to show a point. It is just the continued efforts of our university leaders to bully their way and continuing their striving for hegmony over the lives of the students, faculty, and staff....they have and continue to b on a major power trip.

posted by ilovetoledo on Feb 18, 2014 at 01:58:25 pm     #  

Doesn't AHMahler plan high calorie dinners?

We should designate entire areas of the city as "health food zones." Prior to Mahler hosting said dinners, he should have to submit the menus in advance to make sure there isn't any sugar, high fructose corn syrup, saturated fats, GMO's, or anything that is not 100% healthy.

Also, much like how school lunches have been reduced in regards to portion sizes, I would like to see that all of these dinners have no more than 600 calories, which is 1/3rd of the recommended daily caloric allowance.

First they came for smokers, but Mahler didn't speak out because smoking was "bad." Then they came for the high fructose drinks, but Mahler didn't speak out because it was a "valid argument." Then they came for hoite-toite wine dinners as they were high in saturated fats and because of the potential for drunk driving....

I am going to choose free will over an encroaching, encompassing government every time....

posted by Dappling2 on Feb 18, 2014 at 03:57:04 pm     #  

I'm not for government restricting people's freedoms, but I think most would agree cigarettes are very unhealthy and generally kind of yucky. I've had lots of friends who smoke, and at one time or another probably 90% of them said they are trying to or would like to quit. The people who do smoke don't even like them. If this helps a few people quit, then more power to them.

posted by mixman on Feb 18, 2014 at 03:59:32 pm     #  

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."

Next wine dinner you host, this would be an appropriate toast! :-)

posted by Dappling2 on Feb 18, 2014 at 04:00:26 pm     #  

I am going to choose free will over an encroaching, encompassing government every time....

Hey, you are right on. Tell you what really annoys me is those damned traffic signals. Big government has them just about everywhere. It is my policy to ignore them, in order to protest government intrusion in my life.

posted by MariaL on Feb 18, 2014 at 04:09:57 pm     #   1 person liked this

The mortality rate of smokers is identical to that of non-smokers.

posted by Mike21 on Feb 18, 2014 at 04:17:06 pm     #  

lol...you are right..."if it saves one life" then by all means, encroach on freedom

posted by Dappling2 on Feb 18, 2014 at 04:17:53 pm     #  

UTMC is also a college campus that does not allow smoking on the premises.Why should the University of Toledo be any different?

posted by buckeye278 on Feb 18, 2014 at 04:26:32 pm     #  

Sorry Dappling-Godwin's law evoked-the inevitability that this would turn into a Nazi thread was predicted before TT even started:

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Godwin_s_law.html

At my next wine dinner, I think maybe I'll toast how invoking genocide every time someone is annoyed by a law, both devalues their own argument and marginalizes, you know, Genocide.

NO ONE IS TRYING TO MAKE SMOKING ILLEGAL. Unless you can show evidence to the contrary, put the genocide argument in your back pocket (at least until they actually start killing people).

Again-let me be clear about the difference between letting people do what they want and letting people do what they want, where they want. The concept behind the smoking ban in public spaces is the same as a loud music ordinance. Do you have an issue with such an ordinance? You must, because it infringes on individual right. Well, you could argue that because the loud music affects others in it's vicinity, that it is a law that makes sense. Well, imagine people are just as annoyed by cigarette smoke as loud music, BUT- those people that are annoyed, really don't care what you do, as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's lifestyles (generally speaking). There are laws about public indecency, urinating in public, lots of things that, well, make sense, EVEN THOUGH, they may ever so slightly infringe on people's individual rights to do whatever they want. They were created because that's what our society wants or doesn't want in their public spaces.

That's my, and most people's argument-go smoke as much as you want, hell, I'm ok with people doing heroin. I just don't necessarily feel like you should be able to do everything, everywhere.

Nice try with the career/ politics dichotomy though, I bet you thought were pretty smart with that one...

posted by ahmahler on Feb 18, 2014 at 04:30:54 pm     #   1 person liked this

RonJohns stated; "Personally I don't like smoking and think it's gross, however I believe it is every person of age's right to decide if they'd like to do it or not. While a person could leave campus to smoke, at most places around campus it takes at least 5 minutes to get to your car to even drive off the university property and at least 15 minutes to walk off. That's a inconvenience smokers that pay taxes to fund a public institution should not have to deal with."

Alcohol is also a legal substance and there are many campuses out there where you can't drink while you are on their grounds.Also,there are many tax payer funded parks and beaches that will not allow you to drink alcohol while you are there.I am also inconvenienced as a taxpayer if I want a shot of scotch while I am on campus.I would also have to walk for twenty minutes or more so I could indulge in a legal product.You see, I could use the same logic for alcohol use as you use for smoking.

posted by buckeye278 on Feb 18, 2014 at 04:42:44 pm     #   1 person liked this

UTMC the former Medical College of Ohio*****

posted by stooks on Feb 18, 2014 at 04:56:31 pm     #   3 people liked this

ahmahler posted at 03:30:54 PM on Feb 18, 2014:

Sorry Dappling-Godwin's law evoked-the inevitability that this would turn into a Nazi thread was predicted before TT even started:

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Godwin_s_law.html

At my next wine dinner, I think maybe I'll toast how invoking genocide every time someone is annoyed by a law, both devalues their own argument and marginalizes, you know, Genocide.

NO ONE IS TRYING TO MAKE SMOKING ILLEGAL. Unless you can show evidence to the contrary, put the genocide argument in your back pocket (at least until they actually start killing people).

Again-let me be clear about the difference between letting people do what they want and letting people do what they want, where they want. The concept behind the smoking ban in public spaces is the same as a loud music ordinance. Do you have an issue with such an ordinance? You must, because it infringes on individual right. Well, you could argue that because the loud music affects others in it's vicinity, that it is a law that makes sense. Well, imagine people are just as annoyed by cigarette smoke as loud music, BUT- those people that are annoyed, really don't care what you do, as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's lifestyles (generally speaking). There are laws about public indecency, urinating in public, lots of things that, well, make sense, EVEN THOUGH, they may ever so slightly infringe on people's individual rights to do whatever they want. They were created because that's what our society wants or doesn't want in their public spaces.

That's my, and most people's argument-go smoke as much as you want, hell, I'm ok with people doing heroin. I just don't necessarily feel like you should be able to do everything, everywhere.

Nice try with the career/ politics dichotomy though, I bet you thought were pretty smart with that one...

He did not, only you mentioned Nazi's therefore Godwin's law now applies to you and all your past and present posts are hereby invalid. Isn't that the way it works? First person to ring up Hitler or Nazi's is rendered invalid?

posted by MIJeff on Feb 18, 2014 at 05:03:55 pm     #  

oooh, may have been busted on a technicality. Damn. I still contend it's invoked by the following:

First they came for smokers, but Mahler didn't speak out because smoking was "bad." Then they came for the high fructose drinks, but Mahler didn't speak out because it was a "valid argument." Then they came for hoite-toite wine dinners as they were high in saturated fats and because of the potential for drunk driving....

posted by ahmahler on Feb 18, 2014 at 05:09:18 pm     #  

I don't or didn't see Hitler or Nazi's mentioned anywhere in his post, sure its a similar narrative but you could say the same for internment of Japanese as compared to the Jews in Europe. Those don't quite equal each other, unless you a holocaust denier.

posted by MIJeff on Feb 18, 2014 at 05:12:34 pm     #  

Oh and Godwin's law is stupid anyways, to me it more or less says using the past as a learning example of what not to do or what to be on the watch for is meaningless and therefore stupid people that invoke Godwin's law are either willing to or doomed to repeat mistakes of the past, like trying socialism/communism as if the end outcome will somehow turn out different.

posted by MIJeff on Feb 18, 2014 at 05:15:05 pm     #  

This is the quote it's a parody of, which is a direct quote talking about Germans' reactions to Nazis. It's a pretty famous quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

No, Godwin's laws says that all arguments escalate until eventually someone brings Nazi Germany up. Stupid or not, it did just happen.

posted by ahmahler on Feb 18, 2014 at 05:20:32 pm     #  

@ahmahler: LOL!

posted by paulhem on Feb 18, 2014 at 05:29:36 pm     #   1 person liked this

...5 minutes to get to your car to even drive off the university property and at least 15 minutes to walk off.

Drive off and you'll lose you parking spot... Sung to the tune of "You'll shoot your eye out."

posted by paulhem on Feb 18, 2014 at 05:39:00 pm     #  

MIJeff posted at 04:15:05 PM on Feb 18, 2014:

Oh and Godwin's law is stupid anyways, to me it more or less says using the past as a learning example of what not to do or what to be on the watch for is meaningless and therefore stupid people that invoke Godwin's law are either willing to or doomed to repeat mistakes of the past, like trying socialism/communism as if the end outcome will somehow turn out different.

He didn't mention Hitler or Nazis directly; but did bring up a well-known poem regarding nazis, the context was clear, so Godwin's Law is valid.

Kind of like, if I mention Mein Kampf or say "Sieg Heil!," in response to something someone said, it should be obvious what I am referencing.

And, with all due respect, MIjeff, you are completely off-base on the spirit of Godwin's Law. Here is a pretty good explanation:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

posted by Sohio on Feb 18, 2014 at 05:58:30 pm     #   2 people liked this

"...and then they came for the invokers of Godwin's Law."

posted by Dappling2 on Feb 18, 2014 at 06:22:34 pm     #  

"...and then they came for Paulhem." :-)

posted by Dappling2 on Feb 18, 2014 at 06:23:18 pm     #   1 person liked this

"...when are they gonna come for dappling2, already...?"

posted by Sohio on Feb 18, 2014 at 06:37:40 pm     #  

lol...."They got me long ago Winston."

posted by Dappling2 on Feb 18, 2014 at 06:49:03 pm     #  

I dont think ill be in town but hopefully you are able to upload some footage of the cig giveaway onto youtube. Good luck doing this Ron and keep spreading awareness. I dislike cigarettes but completely banning them from campus is ridiculous.

posted by EconCat88 on Feb 18, 2014 at 08:01:43 pm     #  

Good luck Ron. I am neither a smoker or a libertarian, but I respect your cause. Your only mistake was to post about it here. Smoking ban issues tend to evoke emotional reactions.

posted by nick44 on Feb 18, 2014 at 09:05:09 pm     #  

Mike21 posted at 03:17:06 PM on Feb 18, 2014:

The mortality rate of smokers is identical to that of non-smokers.

As long as they were hit by a bus at the same age.

posted by justread on Feb 18, 2014 at 09:27:19 pm     #  

Mike21 posted at 03:17:06 PM on Feb 18, 2014:

The mortality rate of smokers is identical to that of non-smokers.

... wait wait, are you applying fight-club logic?

"On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."

The sheer amount of evidence that smoking SIGNIFICANTLY impacts longevity is staggering. You're making a claim with no current evidence to back it up.

posted by endcycle on Feb 19, 2014 at 12:37:17 pm     #  

nick44 posted at 08:05:09 PM on Feb 18, 2014:

Good luck Ron. I am neither a smoker or a libertarian, but I respect your cause. Your only mistake was to post about it here. Smoking ban issues tend to evoke emotional reactions.

Actually, the only emotion is coming from the people who are angry that people won't be allowed to smoke on campus, some of whom have used altered maudlin verse to appeal to emotion. Everyone else in this thread has based their statements on sound science and law.

posted by Sohio on Feb 19, 2014 at 01:22:26 pm     #   5 people liked this

Sohio wins.

posted by endcycle on Feb 19, 2014 at 01:27:54 pm     #   1 person liked this

Obviously, some people don't know what sarcasm is.

posted by Mike21 on Feb 19, 2014 at 01:52:29 pm     #  

Mike21 posted at 12:52:29 PM on Feb 19, 2014:

Obviously, some people don't know what sarcasm is.

most of us know what it is, but if you were being sarcastic I couldn't tell - thanks for clarifying. next time, i'd suggest using a /s tag or something.

posted by endcycle on Feb 19, 2014 at 02:28:53 pm     #  

yeah-going to have to side with Mike21 on this one. No one could possibly still think smoking doesn't kill-it's a scientifically proven fact like evolution and climate change. Wait, as I say that out loud, I realize that there may actually be people out there that don't think smoking is unhealthy. Science wins, science always wins.

Although, in endcycle's defense, there's almost no way to divine stupid, trolling (like the comment above) and sarcasm on this board if you're not familiar with the tendencies. Sadly, sarcasm comes in a distant 3rd.

posted by ahmahler on Feb 19, 2014 at 02:36:38 pm     #   1 person liked this

Oldhometown

I am so sorry about your mother. Last June I received a phone call from my oldest daughter. She told me that her mom (my ex wife) had been taken to the hospital from work because she had complained of extreme difficulty breathing. They drained almost a liter of fluid from her chest. Two weeks later another call. it was inoperable stage 4 lung cancer. She died in early December 2013. She left behind 5 children. She was 57 yrs old and started smoking heavily at age 14.I begged and pleaded with her to quit. Even during her pregnancies she chugged away. It was one of the things that led to our divorce. Three of the children were ours and two from her later marriage. Have you ever tried to answer your tearful children's "why daddy,why"? I have lost 7 members of my family to cancer due to smoking and four dear friends. The last was my aunt who passed away in Toledo last week and was a two pack a day tobacco addict. My mom,my dad and on and on. My sister who has a a double masters in nursing and education has been a heavy smoker since age 16. She is 58 yrs of age and has COPD so bad she spends the first half of her day just trying to get her breathing stabilized. Oh by the way. I hear smoking pot is totaly harmless and actually good for you. No harm at all.

posted by Wydowmaker on Feb 19, 2014 at 03:03:48 pm     #  

Booze kills infinitely more people than cigs ever did or will, no moral water wagon being pulled around town last I checked.

I'm not a smoker and don't give a real shit if people do, I just find it funny the battles we fight as a society. Get those stinky, EVIL, cancer sticks but keep you hands of my liquid that makes me cool, helps me dance, eases me into the weekend, causes more interpersonal violence, leading factor in domestic abuse, kills thousands on the road, and is far more dangerous to our children but whateves... go get those dirty, filthy smokers. Save the Marlboro Man, save the world.

BTW the tax revs government makes of cigs WILL be made up somewhere else. Somebody is going to foot the sin tax bill, no matter it people sin or not.

posted by dbw8906 on Feb 19, 2014 at 03:11:39 pm     #  

Those of you mourning the passing of a loved one have my condolences, I've had close personal family that was hit and killed by a DUI driver.

I hope you choke on your next drink before you start laying the "sins" of your friends and family at other people's feet.

posted by dbw8906 on Feb 19, 2014 at 03:13:22 pm     #  

dbw8906 posted at 02:11:39 PM on Feb 19, 2014:

Booze kills infinitely more people than cigs ever did or will, no moral water wagon being pulled around town last I checked.

I'm not a smoker and don't give a real shit if people do, I just find it funny the battles we fight as a society. Get those stinky, EVIL, cancer sticks but keep you hands of my liquid that makes me cool, helps me dance, eases me into the weekend, causes more interpersonal violence, leading factor in domestic abuse, kills thousands on the road, and is far more dangerous to our children but whateves... go get those dirty, filthy smokers. Save the Marlboro Man, save the world.

BTW the tax revs government makes of cigs WILL be made up somewhere else. Somebody is going to foot the sin tax bill, no matter it people sin or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death#Leading_causes_worldwide

Nope, tobacco kills more, by a factor of 5 to 1.9 worldwide and 18.1 to 3.5 in the USA. Facts matter, buddy, especially when you're throwing around so much hyperbole.

Further, drinking alcohol physically harms only YOU. Smoking a cigarette has been shown to physically harm anyone in your vicinity currently and for a measurable amount of time in the near future as well.

Now, you might say "well, alcohol puts me in danger from things like car crashes caused by drunk drivers". In fact, you're ABSOLUTELY right, it does- and that's why we have laws which penalize people who get behind the wheel while drunk.

The same logic extends to cigarette smoke. It causes a measurable and significant harm to people who aren't choosing to partake in the harm willingly. If you could smoke a cigarette in public without harming anyone, that'd be a different story, but you really can't. According to the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (you know, science!) -

"We saw a steep decline in vascular function even after a very short exposure to low levels of secondhand smoke, and that’s very concerning."

"In particular, researchers found that the brachial artery failed to dilate optimally among those exposed to lingering secondhand smoke, suggesting the inner lining of the blood vessels (endothelium) was not functioning as it should. Endothelial dysfunction has been linked to all phases of atherosclerosis, from its inception to cardiac events such as stroke or heart attack."

THIS is the damage these laws are aimed at preventing. No one is suggesting that we take away cigarettes and jail smokers.

posted by endcycle on Feb 19, 2014 at 04:26:15 pm     #  

EC I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about the two but you ignore the psychological issues alcoholism inflicts on our society but if you don't think the "good ole American cool guy" that we wrap alcohol in is abject hypocrisy when it comes to cigs, then you illustrate my point.

Only idiots fight to defend why their poison is BETTER than the poison other people wish to ingest.

posted by dbw8906 on Feb 19, 2014 at 04:32:31 pm     #  

Well, DBW-I can speak for endcycle- and tell you that he and I both know plenty about the psychological effects of alcoholism, we buried our mother at age 53 as a result. It can suck, but facts, remain facts. Keep emotion out of the argument.

posted by ahmahler on Feb 19, 2014 at 04:55:00 pm     #  

Based upon your experiences Ahmahler, shouldn't there be even greater regulation of alcohol by the government? Think of the lives it might have saved....

posted by Dappling2 on Feb 19, 2014 at 08:56:05 pm     #  

Really? You and a few others appear pretty dedicated to this argument. Is this your approach to every issue? In my opinion this one is pretty trivial. i don't like smoke, but could really care less if someone is smoking near me outdoors.

posted by nick44 on Feb 19, 2014 at 08:59:45 pm     #  

..as Mixman said, "If it saves even one life..."

No emotion here...just making a logical conclusion based upon your prior arguments.

posted by Dappling2 on Feb 19, 2014 at 09:01:12 pm     #  

Maybe we can debate evolution and man-made climate change next as they are "facts." lol

posted by Dappling2 on Feb 19, 2014 at 09:02:46 pm     #  

The problem is you don't understand my argument, I believe in personal liberties almost all the way down the line. You can't legislate morality, but, you can certainly legislate keeping the public out of the way of other peoples annoying habits.

posted by ahmahler on Feb 19, 2014 at 09:06:05 pm     #  

I remember many decades ago a sign that hung on the wall of the old Toledo Tattoo on Summit street. I can't give an exact quote but it went something like this. "You like cigarettes and the by product of your pleasure is a stinky smoke that makes me sick. I like to drink an occasional beer and the by product of my pleasure is urine. Please keep your smoke away from me and I won't piss in your hair".

posted by Wydowmaker on Feb 19, 2014 at 10:42:49 pm     #  

UT is legislating behavior, not morality. They have the right to do so, and I'll admit that they can make a decent argument for it. At the same time, students have the right to protest. I just didn't understand the backlash other than an emotional response.

It seems any place I have worked, there were smokers. There were a few whiny people who complained about the smokers invading their personal space. Then there were the other 90% of us who had bigger priorities than to waste time pissing and moaning about a miniscule amount of smoke passing by as we walked out the door and past the smokers. This thread has the same feel.

posted by nick44 on Feb 19, 2014 at 11:17:23 pm     #   1 person liked this

Why don"t we make laws to make ugly people stay home, smelly people to use deodorant, people who stay stupid things to be quiet?

We make smoking marijuana and petty theft major crimes, but.....of all the bankers and brokers who stole billions and billions from clients and the American people.....well that is legal.

I hate smoking and being around it....but I think we are all focusing on the wrong things, people.....it must be some sort of diversion so we do not really start thinking about who really is making life in the US like hell.

posted by ilovetoledo on Feb 19, 2014 at 11:21:47 pm     #   1 person liked this