One of the latest trends in the anti-smoking movement is campus-wide smoking bans that forbid smoking even out of doors and away from buildings. The University of Oregon may soon be jumping on that bandwagon, as an official task force of busybodies has recommended that the administration follow suit. Smokers among UO’s more than 20,000 students will be forced off campus to smoke, even at night; or perhaps they’ll smoke illicitly and litter their butts on the ground due to the lack of ashtrays.
The task force’s report is long and ponderous [pdf]. Thankfully, CJ Ciaramella at the Oregon Commentator has sifted through it for us. CJ spotted this gem from one of the campus discussion forums:
A staff member stated we needed to look past the glamorous side of smoking. The smell of smoke makes him ill. He made the comparison of secondhand smoke to someone who is HIV positive spiting [sic] on another individual and being charged with assault.
That’s a good metaphor actually, given that the odds of contracting HIV from saliva are about as minuscule as getting cancer from passing a smoker on the sidewalk. Was this masterful ironic commentary or blatant scientific ignorance? My money’s on the latter.
Permalink - Share/Save - Comments (8)
Jacob Grier is a freelance writer, barista, mixologist, and magician in Portland, OR. He writes, eats, and drinks a lot. His articles have appeared in The Washington Post, Reason Online, The Oregonian, and other publications.
Follow me on Twitter
I dunno… this was a college professor. They’re often pretty good at subtle ironic commentary.
Staff, not faculty (the report distinguished between the two). This person could have been anyone.
Ahh yes, big difference.
That precise ban went into effect here in Iowa at all “state” buildings, which of course included all university campuses.
I’m not on campus that often, but your post makes me realize that I’ve not seen a lot of butts piling up anywhere, so I’m not sure what the inhabitants are doing when they want to smoke. Could be they’re walking across a street that will take them off state property?
And yes, the HIV comparison is about what one might expect from the anti-smoking fanatics, professor or not!
The professor in the excerpt is not just ignorant of medical science but needs to read up on the law of assault. Assault is an intentional tort and occurs when someone intentionally and voluntarily causes another to have a reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact. In other words, mere negligence such as drifting smoke wouldn’t count. The proper analogy would be someone blowing smoke directly into another’s face, knowing that it will cause offense. Plus, it wouldn’t matter if the spitter was HIV positive, anyone who spits on another in an offensive way could be charged with battery (assault is an attempt crime that merges with battery once the harful or offensive conduct is accomplished).
If I had my way I’d ban every smoker from the planet and give them a one-way ticket to Mars where they could smoke to their hearts’ contents. I vividly remember the days when smokers ruled the office, and if you complained to a smoker or the manager about a smoker, then tough s**t. It got so bad in one office that smokers would turn their little fans around to suck the smoke away from themselves, not caring who had to breathe that foul air. You want to ruin your health, fine, but don’t do it around me where it’s outlawed. And why is it outlawed? So the vast majority of us who don’t smoke don’t have to become inflicted with the diseases most of you smokers will eventually come down with. Smokers are clowns who make no one laugh.
Good catch by CJ. I’m watching the bans here at Vandy, but so far it’s been limited to in and around the Med Center.
I’m sure it’s only a matter of time…