Opinion
The Clackamas Print
Wednesday, February 21, 1996
Smokers becoming a minority
Laney Fouse
Staff Writer
The discrimination jagainst
smokers is mounting not only in
America, but in European and
Asian countries as well. Without
a doubt, smokers are finding it
more difficult to light up whenever
the urge strikes them.
The ban on smoking is
spreading like a prairie wildfire
from boardrooms to bistros. In
November 1992, France became
the first European country to im
pose a ban on smoking in all en
closed public places. Other Eu
ropean countries were quick to
follow suit, although not to the
same extent.
The countries of Great Brit
ain, Germany and Italy settled on
a more passive approach to the
anti-smoking bans. Tax increases
and advertising bans account for
the declining sales of tobacco in
Asian countries.
Nonsmokers are gaining
ground in their attempts to stop
smoking in public places. If the
current trend continues at the same
rapid pace, there will be relatively
few places left for the smokers to
enjoy their nicotine habit.
This social outcry has created
an unprecedented minority... the
smoker. They’re not wanted in
restaurants, airplanes or the work
place, especially if there is a ciga
rette dangling from their lips.
They can forget riding the bus,
they won’t even be allowed in the
back seat.
Not since the struggle for
Civil Rights during the 1960s has
our nation seen such a battle over
equal rights. The controversial
anti-smoking campaign is gaining
momentum despite reports that
there has been no substantial proof
connecting cigarettes with any
type of illness.
Without a doubt, nonsmokers
and persons suffering from respi
ratory illnesses have the right to
protect their health by choosing
not to be exposed to tobacco
smoke. On the other hand, smok
ers are no longer being afforded
the right to choose where they can
smoke.
As it stands, many restaurants
are becoming smoke free environ
ments. Employers in an attempt
to appease nonsmoking workers
are either banning smoking alto
gether or establishing designated
smoking areas.
Occasionally, restrictions
have been imposed on hiring
people who smoke because such
a policy establishes nonsmoking
as the company norm, reduces the
added costs of increased ventila
tion and also reduces the cost of
employee health insurance premi
ums, which are lower for non-
smokers. Many contend such a
policy is flagrantly discriminatory.
Smoking is also being phased out
on domestic and international
flights.
We were made aware of the
devastating effects of smoking and
tobacco use with the issuance of
the Surgeon General’s Report in
1964. The report provided us with
documentation that smoking was
(and still remains) the leading
cause of lung cancer in the U.S.
Several people, trying to
adopt a healthier lifestyle, gave up
smoking. Meanwhile, an increas
ing concern for the environment,
coupled with the trend toward fit
ness, helped cultivate the crusade
against smoking.
Nonsmokers, demanding
their right to clean air, were joined
by allies from the American Can-
Let’s agree
that our main
objective in
life is our
search for
happiness
cer Society, the American Lung
Association, the American Medi
cal Association, the U.S. Depart
ment of Education, legislators and
big and small businesses. As ad
vocates increased in numbers, the
number of smokers soon became
a minority.
Let us, for a minute, explore
the meaning of what is a minority.
For instance, if the person next to
you lights up a cigarette, do you
feel that they are less of a person
or inferior because of this habit?
Do you feel slighted or do you
consider their smoking habit insig
nificant, small, trivial or unimpor
tant to you? Would you rate this
citizen as second class because of
their addiction or merely less than
average as a human being?
Identifying the rights of
smokers and nonsmokers is not the
underlying issue in this battle.
Nonsmokers claim the right to
breathe clean air while smokers
claim the right to smoke. Is legis
lative banning of smoking in pub
lic places a violation of smokers’
rights, guaranteed by the Consti
tution?
By placing bans on smoking,
have we in effect created an envi
ronment that places tobacco ad
dicted people in the role of a mi
nority? When we teach our chil
dren that smoking is bad, are we
also teaching them that smokers
are bad people?
Suppose we can’t agree on
who is more right, the smoker or
the nonsmoker? Let’s agree that
our main objective in life is our
search for happiness. Our ances
tors felt so adequately zealous
about this pursuit that they found
it necessary to guarantee it in our
Constitution.
In the pursuit of happiness, if
a person chooses to live a healthy
lifestyle, then by all means let that
be their choice. If this person
chooses to treat their body like a
machine, then that too is their
choice.
Perhaps a person’s body
would make a better machine if
they didn’t smoke. But, not ev
eryone chooses to be a machine.
If a person, after being
warned about the hazards of ciga
rette smoking, still chooses to
smoke, then by all means let them
do so. It’s their constitutional right
to pursue happiness, and the to
bacco addicted person should be
afforded the opportunity to relax
in peace and in a method of their
own choosing.
,
For a nonsmoker to impose
their lifestyle on a smoker is too
much like what the Prohibitionists
attempted with the Eighteenth
Amendment (banned alcohol) in
1920. The moral majority per
ceived danger in the new types of
jobs created by the industrial and
mechanical age and used this as
the basis of their argument against
the working man using alcohol.
That ban, like the anti-smok
ing ban, drew support from the
unions, the health field and the
churches. For nearly fourteen
years, a few people, once consid
ered hardworking Americans, be
came a minority. Their hard
fought battle over this amendment
resulted in its repeal in 1933.
Some may say that breathing
alcohol never killed nondrinkers.
In the same fashion, people smok
ing and driving cars never killed
anyone either.
It remains to be seen if the ban
on smoking will reach the same
fervent proportions as that of the
ban on alcohol. But, if recent leg
islation is any indicator, not only
will smoking become illegal, but
smokers will become criminals.
Letter to the Editor
We are all in this together
Faculty member advocates
appreciation, trust
FREEDOM from page 2
To the editor:
•
I am disturbed by the petty nig
gling in the air lately. One of my
colleagues was recently accused
by students of a remark which
neither she nor anyone else made.
Our college president is belea
guered by unreasonable demands
and complaints from some who
exhibit no understanding of nor
compassion for the complexities
of his job. Faculty are loudly
criticized
for
expecting
college-level
effort
and
thinking—by some who appar
ently want to pay their tuition and
take home a degree, unburdened
by earned knowledge or thinking
skills. When our deans must
make difficult decisions about
school closures they are censured
equally for closing and for stay
ing open. Clearly such
decisions—and criticisms—are
more easily made after the fact
And faced with our biggest finan
cial and growth challenges in
years, our Board must neverthe
less give up precious time to
some whose sole motive seems
to be to call attention to them
selves.
How unfortunate that hun
dreds of hours of professional
time must be expended dealing
with the irrational and the will
fully uninformed. Those hours
could be put to much better use
educating the many wonderful stu
dents who are here to learn. And
they are by far the majority. I sus
pect we don’t hear as much from
We are not
adversaries.
Most of us
share
'■
common
goals of
educational
excellence.
them because they don’t have
time; they are busy getting an edu
cation.
There is no finer staff at any
college in the country than the one
right here. We continue to have
extremely fine students, as well. I
would like to encourage an atmo
sphere of mutual appreciation and
trust between students, faculty,
support personnel, and administra
tion. We are not adversaries.
Most of us share common goals
of educational excellence.
Can we please give
less—much less—of our attention
to the whining of the malcontent,
the misinformed, and the
self-indulgent? Could we hear
more about the unsung heroes
here? The scholarship winners;
the single parents who work all
day and go to school all evening;
the nursing students who haven’t
the time to even read about the
trivial pursuits of our local
lampooners, but who will, every
one of them, pass their state
boards this summer; the high
school dropouts who drop back
in and succeed the second time
around; the people who spent
two days scraping river mud off
a neighbor’s floor and were back
in class the next day; the staff
who go the extra mile for any stu
dent who is truly trying to learn:
this college is full of people like
these.
We need mutual acknowl
edgment that we are, nearly all
of us, doing the best we can.
Sincerely,
Jan Anderson
English Instructor
to everyone. We should all be able
to work together as a team and not
as little splinter groups that have
nothing better to do than to snipe
at each other.
Some may remember an old
cartoon years ago called “Pogo.”
In one of the cartoons, Pogo makes
a profound statement. “We have
met the enemy, and the enemy is
us.” It shouldn’t be that way.
Where we are the good guys and
they are the bad guys. We don’t
need division between the staff and
the students. What any college,
school, organization or family
needs is unity.
To say we have not written
articles on student government is
inaccurate and contrary to what the
Underground Newspaper has im
plied. ASG President Mike
Caudle has stopped by the Print
often to voice his opinion and of
fer suggestions.
There have also been articles
on campus safety in which Chief
of Public Safety Jim Wiseman, has
stressed we all need to watch over
each other. Are any of us really
listening to what he is saying? Is
it their job to follow us around and
pick up after us so we won’t have
anything stolen?
If we would do our part, their
job would be a lot easier. Book
lets on campus safety are also
available at the Public Safety De
partment at Clairmont Hall.
Maybe this is too far for some to
drive.
If anyone wants to know what
we have or have not written about,
they should stop by the Print of
fice and look through our older
issues. For somebody who has so
many complaints about the Print,
these individuals apparently are
not bothering reading it.