2008 Woodie Awards
Our reader's voices
Issue date: 10/15/07 Section: Voices
- Page 1 of 1
Invasive smoking problem
As an ex-smoker I am aware not only of the dependence one can have on nicotine, but also of the negative effects secondhand smoke provides to the nonsmoking public. Smoking is an invasive and dirty habit, which consumes everyone around the smoker. California has the right idea eliminating smoke within confined spaces.
Some may find that what people do behind closed doors is their own business. But what if smoke seeps under the doors and to a neighbor's atmosphere? This policy speaks for those who cannot represent themselves and their polluted lungs. The infant in the apartment perhaps, who is overwhelmed with cigarette smoke at such a young age, needs a voice. For every smoker who does not have a child in his or her apartment, there are at least two that do. This should be viewed as an opportunity to quit smoking, not a violation of smokers' rights. This can also be a reason to resist the urge to put another nail in the coffin and help instigate a positive movement toward better health.
Smoking is a habit that can be kicked - even for the most addicted smoker; I'm living proof. Smokers: Respect those around you; smoking is an extremely invasive pollutant. A ban would not be proposed if it was not harmful to be around such toxins. Take the educational and responsible route and recognize yourself as one of the reasons such a policy may have been proposed in the first place.
Lisette Tamkei
Rosebush freshman
Let businesses decide
In the Oct. 5, 2007 edition of Central Michigan Life, an editorial was published concerning the anti-smoking legislation in California. Two cities were mentioned as wanting to make it illegal to smoke in apartment complexes. The editorial stated that apartment managers should have the choice to decide whether or not to allow smoking in their complexes and buildings - a business decision that is theirs to make. In fact, the ending sentence to that paragraph is exactly "Businesses should have a choice of how to operate." That could not be any closer to the truth.
However, anyone who was awake when they read the editorial should realize how incredibly hypocritical it is. The fourth paragraph talks about the sensibility of legislation that bans smoking in bars and restaurants. The argument being that people who don't smoke can't avoid the secondhand smoke. Wait a minute, what about the stance that businesses should have a choice of how to operate? No one is forced to patronize an establishment, so why should the business be told what they can or can not do?
Maybe "logic check" should be a feature in the next version of Microsoft Word.
Jason Gillman Jr.
Traverse City junior
As an ex-smoker I am aware not only of the dependence one can have on nicotine, but also of the negative effects secondhand smoke provides to the nonsmoking public. Smoking is an invasive and dirty habit, which consumes everyone around the smoker. California has the right idea eliminating smoke within confined spaces.
Some may find that what people do behind closed doors is their own business. But what if smoke seeps under the doors and to a neighbor's atmosphere? This policy speaks for those who cannot represent themselves and their polluted lungs. The infant in the apartment perhaps, who is overwhelmed with cigarette smoke at such a young age, needs a voice. For every smoker who does not have a child in his or her apartment, there are at least two that do. This should be viewed as an opportunity to quit smoking, not a violation of smokers' rights. This can also be a reason to resist the urge to put another nail in the coffin and help instigate a positive movement toward better health.
Smoking is a habit that can be kicked - even for the most addicted smoker; I'm living proof. Smokers: Respect those around you; smoking is an extremely invasive pollutant. A ban would not be proposed if it was not harmful to be around such toxins. Take the educational and responsible route and recognize yourself as one of the reasons such a policy may have been proposed in the first place.
Lisette Tamkei
Rosebush freshman
Let businesses decide
In the Oct. 5, 2007 edition of Central Michigan Life, an editorial was published concerning the anti-smoking legislation in California. Two cities were mentioned as wanting to make it illegal to smoke in apartment complexes. The editorial stated that apartment managers should have the choice to decide whether or not to allow smoking in their complexes and buildings - a business decision that is theirs to make. In fact, the ending sentence to that paragraph is exactly "Businesses should have a choice of how to operate." That could not be any closer to the truth.
However, anyone who was awake when they read the editorial should realize how incredibly hypocritical it is. The fourth paragraph talks about the sensibility of legislation that bans smoking in bars and restaurants. The argument being that people who don't smoke can't avoid the secondhand smoke. Wait a minute, what about the stance that businesses should have a choice of how to operate? No one is forced to patronize an establishment, so why should the business be told what they can or can not do?
Maybe "logic check" should be a feature in the next version of Microsoft Word.
Jason Gillman Jr.
Traverse City junior
Be the first to comment on this story