Smoking ban could be addictive - The Western Front: News

Smoking ban could be addictive

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Friday, October 5, 2012 8:11 am

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced an initiative to ban smoking from college campuses last month. This is part of the HHS goal to create a society free of tobacco-related disease and death, according to their action plan released by the HHS in 2010. 

Colleges who fail to enact campus-wide smoking bans and other tobacco-free policies may soon face the loss of grants and contracts from the HHS, according to the plan. Western receives grants through a subdivision of the HHS called the National Institutes of Health, Acting Vice Provost for Research Kathleen Kitto said.

Western does not forbid smoking on campus, although the university discourages smoking throughout campus walkways with signs that read “avoid smoking on walkways, paths, bus stops & when near others outdoors.”

Medical histories obtained by the Student Health Center show more than 20 percent of health center patients regularly smoke tobacco.

Western policies are currently in compliance with all state and federal laws and the university is not at risk of losing funding, Kitto said.

Students on Western’s campus have voiced concerns about the HHS’s actions.

“It seems discriminatory against smokers,” said junior Jonathan Stone, who has been a smoker for three years. “For some, it’s a choice and for others it’s an addiction.”

Smokers aren’t alone. Some non-smokers also are expressing their disapproval over the possibility of a smoking ban.

“They can have smoking areas," said sophomore Michelle Mauro, a non-smoker. "But I think the whole campus having a smoking ban is just a little extreme.”

Junior Marta Wambaugh, another non-smoker, also disagrees with banning tobacco, favoring education and preventative policies instead.

“I’m surprised it's anti-smoking and not just a ‘we’ll help you quit if you want to’ policy, which I think is a better way to go,” Wambaugh said. “People won’t quit unless they want to.”

Such programs do exist. Western administration makes an effort to identify student tobacco use and provide education and support, especially for patients who go to the Student Health Center with respiratory complaints, SHC Director Emily Gibson wrote in an email.

There are smokers who are sympathetic to the idea of a ban.

“I would be bothered by it but I would accept it,” said senior Joe Savarese, who has been smoking for five years. “I wouldn’t want my own personal habit to inhibit anybody else.”

Many colleges across the nation are adopting smoking bans. There are now 814 campuses in the United States that have enacted a complete ban on smoking, according to the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation.

“Smoking is still a problem on the WWU campus despite the current rules leaving buildings smoke-free,” Gibson said. “Simply walking through a crowd in between classes, one is assaulted by second-hand smoke from those who are using the break to get their nicotine fix.”

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.


  • posted at 10:02 am on Sat, Apr 6, 2013.


    Any federal agency that focuses on "smoking" (the behavior of unwittingly poisoned victims) while simultaneously ignoring the Still Legal contamination of typical cigarettes with so many non-tobacco toxins and carciniogens is proven to have false "concerns" about health. Such an agency is likely staffed by "revolving door" agents of the very industries...pesticides, pharmaceuticals, chlorine, etc....that are responsible for that contamination.

    Such an organization insults medical science by failing to even study UN-contaminated tobacco to find what harms it may present (besides irritation from overuse) to compare findings to effects of typical cigarettes with all their pesticide residues, dioxins from the chlorine chemicals and chlorine-bleached paper, radiation from certain phosphate fertilizers, any number of often toxic non-tobacco additives, and even fake tobacco made from all sorts of industrial (mostly agricultural) waste cellulose.
    Principles of science, and basic humanity, are also insulted when "health" organizations fail to notice that many "smoking-related" illnesses are impossible to be caused by smoke from any plant but ARE known to be caused by pesticides, dioxins and radiation. And what can one say about abject failure to label or otherwise publicize the ingredients to warn people away from contaminated products?

    A site called "Fauxbacco" has ample reference material.

  • posted at 2:59 pm on Tue, Nov 13, 2012.


    Institutes of higher learning are now to be under the control of lowlife innitiative? Just who has the power to force the leader of the free world to quit smoking by finger wags and exclamations that "if your not with us your guilty of child abuse"? The self same large corporate interests feasting off the dead carcass of the WHO that is who. you know them as the evening news corespondents and Public Health Experts."

    If you leave out the largest studies as the Surgeon General's office
    did, [with a 90% confidence level in place of the traditional 95%] when
    conducting a meta analysis agenda ready conclusion of health risk
    derived by tobacco smoke. The conclusion linking a health risk to Bingo
    hall attendants and waitstaff demonstrated an increased risk of 12 per million among those most exposed; at the highest possible levels [smoking box derived] and by the longest possible duration? .12 above no risk or .88 below a level that is known as "acceptable risk" levels in normal practice [1/10,000] At 12 per million in this instance representing the absolute extreme, would suggest that someone exposed at less than 1/100th of that amount and 1/1000th of the timed duration, as the population norm,would see an increased health risk of less than 1 in a Billion by either route of abatement [or with both; the population of 15 similar planets?]. Lets err on the side of safety, at 1per Billion which is 1/3 of a person for the entire population of the United States but only if they qualify as "at risk" eliminating 60% more of the risk [smokers, the aged and the precious children not in attendance]. Contrast that number against what the body part charities are telling people, that 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 will suffer from the disease they specialize in? The proposed 1/3 in a billion although still not safe [There is no safe level of tobacco smoke; surgeon Generals office et al] is at a realistic level, that coincides with observational truths of centuries past, and supports the reality that few should make any costly effort to curtail that exposure lest we tread on the ground of bigotry and narcissism,

    [Number needed to treat [NNT] vs number needed to do harms [NNH] oops, that is how science is normally done, outside the newsrooms and pom pom palaces, formally known as medical conferences]

    Those who do, should consider some professional help, dealing with a real personality problem, that will cause them harm.

    "Public Health" [the cartel] is always about the money. All a smoking ban accomplishes is an increased sale of alternative "medicines"[supply and demand manipulations]. Those medicines with a confirmed 97% failure rate [vs 36% success rates without them] among people who really do want to quit and the failure to recognize a real harm, imposed by medical bullying alone, speaks volumes to the credibility and ethics of the bully behind every smoking ban initiate.

    Is a compliant university or college really teaching people how to think, or simply what to think, after their social engineering alterations?

  • posted at 10:34 am on Sat, Oct 6, 2012.


    SHC Director Gibson fails to note one rather important thing about the "assaults" that she's so worried about. Applying the EPA Report's statistical analysis and correcting for durations and intensities of exposure it would take a student walking through those crowds of smokers TEN TIMES A DAY, every single day, for TWENTY FIVE MILLION years to get, on average, a single case of lung cancer.

    Claiming real health effects from the levels of smoke exposure that exist outdoors is little more than an outright lie. It's simply an excuse used to get the bans accepted. And why is it so important to get them accepted? Simple: negative conditioning, just as with lab rats. Make smoking difficult and uncomfortable, equivalent to shocking the rat who eats out of the blue bowl instead of the yellow one, and the desired behavior can be trained.

    Students are not rats and shouldn't accept being treated like rats.

    Michael J. McFadden
    Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

  • posted at 5:33 am on Sat, Oct 6, 2012.


    Federal Government Continues Progress to Prevent Tobacco-Caused Disease While States Fall Tragically Short

    "President Obama's administration has confronted the tobacco epidemic head-on," said Charles D. Connor, American Lung Association president and CEO.