The OC Blog Back Issues Our Mission Contact Us Masthead
Sudsy Wants You to Join the Oregon Commentator

More On The Smoking Ban

For those interested, you can read the Smoke Free Task Force’s full report to the administration here. It’s worth a read, if just to see how biased and asinine the whole process has been. Join me as I wade through document and pick out some of my favorite parts. For example, this is part of the recap of the “forums” held to discuss the smoking ban:

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.

A moderate and cogent analogy if I’ve ever heard one! Moving on the unsupported statements part of the report:

Secondhand smoke causes an estimated 800 deaths a year in Oregon [source?]. Exposure to as few as thirty minutes of secondhand smoke exposure can affect a person’s breathing [um, source?]. Workers exposed to secondhand smoke have a 35-50% increased risk of heart disease [no, really, source please]. Constant exposure to secondhand smoke nearly doubles the risk of a heart attack.

I’m sorry, but you fail Writing 121. Now to the creepy, culture change part of the report:

It is clear that making the campus entirely smoke free will only be successful if there is a change in the culture itself. Thus, the most important job of the implementation committee in general and the Project Coordinator in particular will be to educate the campus community about how this change in culture will be implemented over several years.

To the re-education camps, comrade! But there is some light at the end of the tunnel:

Recognition was given to the challenge of enforcing a new campus wide policy. The majority of other universities and colleges we contacted have no consequential enforcement for smoking policies. We recommend a strategy of education, individual responsibility, and action as necessary for only the most egregious violations of a smoke free campus policy.

What that means in normal, not-stupid speak is the university isn’t really going to enforce the smoking ban. I’m glad to the task force put in all that work to recommend a policy it doesn’t even think is feasible to enforce. Hooray for bureaucracy.

Check the archives for more on the history of the smoking ban.

  1. nike urbanism duk says:

    Nike World outside Beaverton is a entirely smoke free campus. The overlord has spoken. We need a healthy, sporty branded space for all to enjoy. We must comply. Line up now for your RFID smart card too…..or get out.

  2. Scott says:

    That bacon thing is quite possibly the most amazing thing I have ever seen with bacon…

    And I’ve been to that Brazilian restaurant in portland that serves meat on swords.

  3. Olly says:

    “He made the comparison of secondhand smoke to someone who is HIV positive spiting [sic] on another individual…”

    This is my favorite part, both for hysteria and for making completely the opposite point to what was intended.

  4. Vincent says:


    Directly is the key word.

  5. Betz says:

    Go with BK’s quad stackers … if you’re man enough.

  6. Sakaki says:

    Everyone gets some form of cancer. In my case, the cancer are these health nuts who think they know what’s better for me than I do.

    And just to prove my superiority over these assholes, I shall go to a heart surgeon’s office and eat 3 Baconators.

  7. Ross Coyle says:

    I might take you up on that bet, Vince.

  8. Vincent says:


    No, it’s really not about health. It’s about people using specious arguments about health (“NO amount of smoke is SAFE!!”) to ban a practice they find distasteful. That much was clear from attending the hearings on it last Spring.

    Sure, smoking causes cancer. Alcohol causes cirrhosis. I’d be willing to bet that drunk drivers probably kill more people every year than the number who die from an illness that can be directly attributed to cigarettes.

  9. Ross Coyle says:

    I’m pretty sure that at the heart of this debate is more a health issue then any other. Speaking as a non smoker, I have having to follow my friends outside to continue a conversation with them while they kill themselves slowly. To make matters worse, I don’t like the idea of inhaling the fumes from a smoking deck (which are necessary to be sure). Simply perusing the National Library of Medicine or the CDC website will bring up numerous claims that second hand smoke causes cancer. This is also backed up by the American Cancer Society. When it comes to it, I’d rather keep people smoking in their houses or if you have to at bars, outside. While I agree that most vice regulation (booze, gambling, hos) is unnecessary, smoking is a vice that has an active effect on people passively engaging in it.

  10. Kai Davis says:

    Pipes, Betz. Those formally debonair men with their pipes must be stopped. At any cost.

  11. Betz says:

    What exactly counts as “egregious violations” of said smoking ban? I’m guessing they’re still working on that part. Would that be like smoking a stogie instead of a cigarette, or just chain-smoking an entire pack? Or worse yet, smoking cloves?

  12. Little Grasshopper says:

    What happened to smoker’s rights?

    It seems to me that the administration is trying to give equal rights to all who are on campus though this limits our freedom. What if I just didn’t care that I’m going to die earlier than most non-smokers?

    They say that each time people smoke they reduce their life expectancy by 7 seconds. But when I’m at the end of my life I’m not going to be having much to live for anyway. How long to people live?

    I’m probably going to be old and wrinkly by when it

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.