Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
BY Adam Preiwisch
PUBLISHED: 12/08/2008
With the recent debates on smoking all but over, I’d like to hear what the University has to say. I’ve yet to hear one legitimate reason the ban should be enacted. So that begs the question, why are you even acknowledging such ludicrous demands? Please, University of Minnesota, explain yourself.
Why are you pandering to the demands of a vocal minority? Moreover, why go through all the hassle of holding debates if you fully intend to arrive at the conclusion you presumed from the start: The University must “save” us from the “evils” of smoking since we apparently don't know better. It is, after all, only our rights that we're talking about.
Adam Preiwisch
University student
3 Comments
To flag an inappropriate comment please login.
Anti-smoking bans
Anti-Smoking Facade Crumbling
The conclusions of the following information coincides with the fact that the Ontario, Canada Liberal government's demoralizing, dictatorial smoke-free legislations make people emotionally/psychologically ill. Good emotional/psychological health makes physical health work, not the reverse.
'Councilman James Gennaro is introducing a bill to ban smoking in automobiles if a minor is present,' New York, August 15, 2007. Robert Madden, M.D., Former President of the New York Cancer Society wrote in The New York Sun, "He wants to control everyones behaviour. And he can't, he can only try. These efforts are based on data, both old and new, on the effects of secondhand smoke. This data is scientifically weak and controversial. The most recent example of this is found in the 2006 Surgeon General's report on the effects of secondhand smoke."
Also stated by Dr. Robert Madden, "To me the most offensive element of the smoking bans is the resort to science as "proving that environmental smoke, second-hand smoke, causes lung cancer." Not only is this unproven, but there is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for a scientist like myself, to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society, of which I am a member and the American Lung Association used to justify what is best described as a political agenda.
'Medical Journal critcizes WHO for neglecting evidence, The Associated Press, May 7, 2007.' When developing evidence-based guidelines, the World Health Organization routinely forgets one key ingredient: evidence. The medical journals (Lancet) criticism of WHO will shock many in the global health community, as one of WHO's main jobs is to produce guidelines on everything from fighting the spread of bird flu and malaria control to enacting anti-smoking legislation. WHO's director of research policy Dr. Tikki Pang said that some of the WHO colleagues were shocked by Lancet's study, but he acknowledged the criticism had merit, and explained that time pressures and a lack of both information and money sometimes compromised WHO work.
The actual result of the Liberal's "pet project," anti-smoking, is increased fear, anxiety, depression and therefore mental and physical illness. It affects smokers, their families, and other children whose minds are being preyed upon by constant government attempts to control their smoking behaviour.
Anti-smoking is not only a loss of rights...it is the foothold of Fascism! Do we care?
Smoking is just the beginning
Next will be he First and Second Amendments.
Oops - forgot - the University already bans those on Campus.
The Dean at my University is
The Dean at my University is against smoking on campus. That's for sure. He has started some anti-smoking campaigns and students seem to rebel against them. There's a good reason for their behavior too. Our Dean sits in his office smoking cigars all day long and preaches to us to quit smoking.
Post new comment