My lungs were assaulted yesterday by a terrible puff of secondhand smoke. The assailant was a white male about twenty years of age. He was last seen wearing a maroon VT T-shirt. If you see this man, please do not make any attempt to apprehend him yourself; he clearly has no consideration for the health of others. Although he appears to be very polite -- don't be fooled! Anyone who smokes cannot possibly be a good person. If they were good people, wouldn't they just stop forcing us all to breathe in cancer?
I am writing today in hopes that the Virginia Tech students and administrative staff will act with haste in safekeeping the lungs and freedoms of the non-smoking Virginia Tech community. I know that there are a lot of smokers here at Tech. However, as with all free and democratic societies, the majority is allowed to actively oppress the minority. Because we non-smokers outnumber the smoking community, we have the duty to decide what the smokers can and cannot do.
While at home in the great state of New York over winter break, I had the privilege of visiting some of New York's best college campuses. Many of these places have completely banned smoking altogether. In fact, smokers are only allowed to smoke in their cars or in hidden areas where the eyes of the people with the ticket books cannot spot them. Although this certainly should be the end goal here at Tech, I think our first step in oppressing the smoking community should be one that is far easier to spin with a happy face. My proposal is this: create designated smoking areas.
The topic of designated smoking areas is one that has come up at Virginia Tech more than once. I think it's time we bring the topic back into regulatory focus. It's the perfect middle ground: A designated smoking area would assure a non-smoker of his or her right to healthy lungs, but it also grants smokers the privilege to continue their unsophisticated habit.
I understand that the smokers pay the same taxes and tuition as everyone else here at Tech. Therefore, we cannot alienate them completely, as we do surely need their money. That is why my flawless plan of smoker oppression also carries with it some revenue creation. As with any new regulatory measure, the purpose is always to control people and make money. You don't actually believe that smoking regulations are because bureaucrats care about people's health, do you?
Leave a comment 31 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Ah, a true believer in the nanny state. Tax and demean people until they act the way we want them to act. You're breaking dangerous ground here, my friend. . .
Reply to this Top
Kyle, I don't think this was meant to be taken seriously. If it were serious they wouldn't admit that they think smokers should "jump through any and all hoops". They would certainly know they didn't speak for the entire non-smoking crowd since there are many non-smokers (such as every non-hypocritical non-smoking libertarian) who oppose bans and all that rot.
Reply to this Top
More than 50 studies show that human papillomaviruses cause over ten times more lung cancers than they pretend are caused by secondhand smoke. Passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, so the anti-smokers' studies, which are all based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, have been cynically DESIGNED to falsely blame passive smoking for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV. smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm The anti-smokers have committed the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on smoking and passive smoking, as well as ignoring other types of evidence that proves they are lying, such as the fact that the death rates from asthma have more than doubled since their movement began. smokershistory.com/newviews.htm And it's a lie that passive smoking causes heart disease. AMI deaths in Pueblo actually ROSE the year after the smoking ban. smokershistory.com/etsheart.html
Reply to this Top
so using the HPV logic, since more deaths are caused by autos than guns, we should stop looking at gun deaths and start attacking the car problem? The fact is, smoking is unhealthy and the university would be a cleaner environment without it. While the health risks may be misreported in magnitude, they do exist.
Reply to this Top
If this is satire, it is brilliant. The sad thing is that so many people actually think this way, and he may be serious.
Reply to this Top
Though this article is (hopefully) pointing out how ridiculous anti-smoking laws really are, it is the unfortunate truth that many politicians, including Virginia's own governor Tim Kaine, are arguing for this case. Even though many people do not smoke they should be able to see how hypocritical and simply un-American it is to create such laws.
Reply to this Top
If this is satire, the Collegiate Times should issue an apology. They are not a satirical publication, and should recognize the danger of printing satire in an otherwise serious forum. When you expect real news, you read it at that. End of story. P.S. if you want satire, visit www.lunchpailtimes.com for all your VT satire needs.
Reply to this Top
@Chris S. Knowing the author personally, I can assure you this is satire. The sad part is that he only just goes far enough over the top for that to be evident. It otherwise does sound like a serious proposal.
Reply to this Top
My dear Fred, when you expect real news, you should not read the editorial section.
Reply to this Top
Chad, you're a prud. Also, your mother has smoked so many coks, she should be worried about her health.
Reply to this Top
Its definitely satire... Phrases like "as with all free and democratic societies, the majority is allowed to actively oppress the minority" should be a dead give away. It is satire of silly regulation, the nanny state, and democracy. The sad part is that the editorial board appears to have missed this giving their titling of the article.
Reply to this Top
Its definitely satire... Phrases like "as with all free and democratic societies, the majority is allowed to actively oppress the minority" should be a dead give away. It is satire of silly regulation, the nanny state, and democracy. The sad part is that the editorial board appears to have missed this giving their titling of the article.
Reply to this Top
I don't want someone F'ing smoking in my face. I don't care what you amateur lawyers think the constitutions says. I'm going to walk around campus swinging my arms and if I happen to accidentally punch a smoker in the face, then screw him. I have a right to swing my arms around wherever I want.
Reply to this Top
my dear amanda, satire is different than an editorial (which is an opinion rooted in fact)
Reply to this Top
It is quite sad that the opinions staff and many of the readers completely missed the obvious satire. Perhaps those who name articles should pay a bit more attention to the meaning of the piece.
Reply to this Top
I thought it was clearly satire. I guess I should have added a little "wink" face at the end. The wink face ";-)" is - as we all know - the universal sign for telling when something is a joke. Like late at night when you tell that girl "Hey, you should come over and we can get naked ;-)." The wink face assures her you're maybe joking with her, and that telling your girlfriend about this little proposal would be foolish. I also hope that the comment on swinging your arms is also satire. Also, I disagree that an editorial page is not the place for satirical writing. Not every "problem" facing our generation should be taken seriously.
Reply to this Top
I thought it was clearly satire. I guess I should have added a little "wink" face at the end. The wink face ";-)" is - as we all know - the universal sign for telling when something is a joke. Like late at night when you tell that girl "Hey, you should come over and we can get naked ;-)." The wink face assures her you're maybe joking with her, and that telling your girlfriend about this little proposal would be foolish. I also hope that the comment on swinging your arms is also satire. Also, I disagree that an editorial page is not the place for satirical writing. Not every "problem" facing our generation should be taken seriously.
Reply to this Top
The arms comment was not satire, it was sarcasm. Get it straight, Shakespeare.
Reply to this Top
...Ok. Thank you.
Reply to this Top
A satire can have a serious sounding title. That can be part of the satire. "A Modest Proposal" wasn't exactly a modest proposal (eating babies to solve economic/food troubles), and "Smoking Regulations Would Serve Tech" isn't really saying they serve Tech. I think it's silly to blame the CT if people can't recognize a satire. How twisted have our perspectives become if we could read that as a serious article?
Reply to this Top
Well played good sir, well played.
Reply to this Top
I guess I'll take some of the blame here, but the reason why I (at first) didn't pick up on the satire was because of the fairly in-depth arguments I've been having in the forums on this subject recently. It seems that there are actually people who believe that the author's standpoint is actually a legitimate one - and since I rarely read the CT with the same analytical rigor with which I read my Swift, it just didn't strike me (from what I've read recently) that the author's position was actually implausible.
Reply to this Top
got no problem with the article being satire...just saying...whether you like it or not...journalism 101 will tell you that you should properly label satire as such...no matter how obvious it seems to you, the writer. An editorial is different than satire, although I agree the "opinions" section is the place for it as well. You just have to make sure you clearly label it. The ultimate reason? Look at the comments...many of your readers took the article the wrong way...and thats just those that tookt he time to comment...how many others misunderstood but didn't comment? Very nice article, but you've got to label them appropriately. Again, your opinion on the issue doesn't matter...the proof is in the results (and every journalism textbook ever).
Reply to this Top
To be fair, Fred, I doubt that it was the author who came up with the title of the piece. Usually, the editor assigns the title (I think) . . .
Reply to this Top
The authors do not title the columns. The opinions editor titles them. Even if the author includes a title the staff changes it.
Reply to this Top
I really was trying to argue as if I was an advocate for smoking regulations...just one who is more truthful with themselves. Labeling this satire would make it pointless for me to pretend to do anything. Doing so would make having only a few extreme comments pointless. Instead, i'd have to write an article that is very extreme or straightforward -- neither is fun. I didn't title this, but I think the title is fine.
Reply to this Top
This article is pretty good although I think a smoker's rights are as equal as a non-smoker's. The main problem I have with this article is it dismisses the true need for regulation. In our society of advanced medicine and technology we are still faced with some of the most advanced illnesses such as cancer. Directly linked to smoking, this cancer is even more prone to people who inhale second hand smoke...now don't you think the polluter should have something to reduce the statistics?
Reply to this Top
Honestly you sound kind of like a control freak. Your argument is invalid and for all intense and purpose, retarded. First of all $100 fines for smoking is ignitable in court do to the fact the smoker is unlawfully fined upon, The state of Virginia would most likely drop the fine anyways and the school would undoubtedly not back you theory up in any case. As for your wall, that is money the school would most likely rather not spend, though you did find your own idea flawed which hinders you opinion in the forefront of your argument. Besides what right do you have to hinder smokers from there habits, that like telling you not to masturbate. Next to impossible for any length of time. You should probably think through your next idea a little more and just avoid smokers if it bothers you and your anti smoking lifestyle to much.
Reply to this Top
Eric...We've established that my article is satire. I am strongly against any smoking regulations. Honestly, I am shocked so many people were fooled...
Reply to this Top
Poe's law: it is hard to tell fake fundamentalism from the real thing, since they may both espouse equally extreme beliefs. "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article." I found your article entertaining =P
Reply to this Top
<a href="http://www.pskiller.com/">Photoshopped Image Killer</a> is a very useful application to get detailed information of a JPEG image as for whether it has been Photoshopped. PSKiller opens and decodes your JPEG file, then several image statistics features are analyzed to see whether some of them are abnormal compared to those of untouched images.
Reply to this Top