Holy smokes: UD’s tobacco culture

5
1570
A student smokes a cigarette on the small porch behind Braniff. Many students use the porches and tables around the Mall for smoke breaks between classes.

There is a lot that is unique about the culture of the University of Dallas. We celebrate Thursday nights, revel in philosophical discussions, and passionately mark  Groundhog Day, to name a few.

While many of the fun quirks that are present at UD are essential for creating a beautiful community for independent scholars, there are some things about the culture of UD that are not.

One thing that  harms more than helps is the incredibly high amount of smoking on campus.

Almost every time you walk down the Mall, outside the Cap bar, or by the Rathskeller during dinner, you will catch more than a whiff of tobacco smoke. Almost any student can tell you that smoking is part of the culture at UD.

Why is there such a high amount of smoking? Some suggest that the Rome program is partly to blame because many students pick up the habit in Europe, where cigarettes are cheap and smoking during conversation is socially encouraged..

Others say smoking is just a good way to introduce yourself to others and to integrate into the UD social life.

Whatever the reasons, we need to kick this habit and stop offering defenses for it.

First, smoking has extremely negative health consequences. Cigarettes are highly addictive and are known to cause chronic and terminal disease.

Beyond that, it’s regrettable that so many social circles are formed around smoking to the exclusion of  students who won’t or can’t be around cigarette smoke.

Some upperclassmen have actually encouraged freshmen to take up smoking as a way of relating to others and carrying on a conversation.

The problem with this is that many students simply cannot be around cigarette smoke.

Students who are asthmatic as well as students who have an intolerance or allergy to cigarette smoke cannot be anywhere near those who are smoking.

Those who are asthmatic can have asthma attacks and will not be able to breathe. Those who have allergies can experience a painful swelling of the face and a burning sensation in their eyes and nose.

There are also many students who do not have a medical issue with cigarette smoke, but simply do not wish to be around it due to fear of becoming addicted or because they find it unpleasant.

There are more of these students than some  would think, and most of them feel excluded  from the culture at UD because they are not able to participate as fully as their friends who smoke .

Non-smokers must be absent from otherwise beneficial conversations or social events due to the pervasive smoking at UD.

As an addiction to smoking leads to the blackening of the lungs, so the culture of smoking at UD leads to the dampening of all the other wonderful aspects of UD’s community.

If we really examine UD’s mission and history, we should conclude that smoking should be a fading practice on campus.

We are dedicated to seeking truth — and the truth about cigarettes couldn’t be any clearer.

How can we claim to be searching for truth when we know the truth of something, yet we ignore it?  

Hopefully, we can one day rid the University of Dallas campus of the hazy culture formed around smoking.

 

5 COMMENTS

  1. –In Defense of Smoking:
    As a Beneficial Social Activity for the University of Dallas Community

    I disagree with the article by Mr. Lancaster. I believe that the common practice of smoking among University of Dallas students contributes to the vibrant intellectual life of the community, which is the ultimate goal of the University.

    First, who is to judge which “fun quirks” actually are “essential for creating a beautiful community for independent scholars” and which “are not”?
    This question is very important, because “culture” generally is stronger, more lasting, and more unifying, if it comes from the people and not the administration. Lancaster does not say how this culture should be changed, but there is a huge difference between a freshman trying to persuade the masses through argument and the free press, and advocating for an administrative ban of all tobacco on campus. I would like some clarification on how Lancaster thinks we should get rid of the smoking culture.

    Secondly, I do not see how smoking “harms more than helps” the” culture of UD” if this “culture”, as Lancaster defines it, is primarily a culture dedicated to fostering people to become “independent scholars.” I would like to know how, exactly, the smoker is deterring himself or others from becoming independent scholars. Lancaster says that smoking deters non-smokers from conversing with smokers which, undoubtedly, can hurt non-smokers excluded from developing their intellects though conversation with smokers, and can also deter the smokers from developing their intellects through conversation with non-smokers. However, would the alternative encourage more intellectual conversation or not?

    I would argue that smoking does more in bringing people together and encourages more intellectual debate (thus enhancing the UD culture of “independent scholarship”) than a student body which does not smoke. If this non-smoking was imposed by law (though Lancaster does not argue for this) from the administration, the negative effects would be even worse. Thus, I think that you Lancaster is not considering the unforeseen consequences of stopping people from smoking, and is not seeing how smoking actually encourages more intellectual debate than not smoking.

    I believe Lancaster’s real issue with smoking on campus, centers around his claim that smoking excludes certain non-smokers in social situations. This is regrettable. However, if we are aiming at a community of independent scholarship–and assuming we agree that getting people together to talk is one of the best ways to encourage this–I would ask Lancaster this: Generally speaking, are smokers or non-smokers more open to inviting others to talk, introducing themselves to strangers, and listening to and offering diverse points of view? I would argue that it is the smokers who generally meet more students, debate more passionately, and invite more people into intellectual discussions.

    I am not saying that this cannot be done without smoking. However, it is true (whether you like it or not) that many of UD’s most outspoken and social students do smoke and use smoking as a means of meeting new people, talking, and encouraging intellectual debate. Smoking is not the end, but it contributes to a relaxing and enlightening intellectual conversation. I cannot tell you how many times I have had great conversations with smokers who were taking a break from study to have a cigarette. If they were not smokers, they would have been less likely to be standing in the same place for 10 minutes, allowing me to talk with them. Many times I would smoke with them. However, most of the time I would just talk. The cigarette (and the way it encourages people to stop what they are doing, go outside and simply stand still for a while) encourages reflection and conversation which would otherwise be lacking. This is how smoking contributes to the intellectual life of UD.

    Further, I have never met a smoker at UD who has refused to talk with someone because this someone would not smoke with him. However, I have met students who refuse to talk with other students (or judged them and refused to even associate with them) because these other students are smokers.

    Next, Lancaster says that “Some upperclassmen have actually encouraged freshmen to take up smoking as a way of relating to others and carrying on a conversation.” Is there something wrong with this? We are all adults here, and persuading a free individual to do something which is completely legal is fine in a free country. If one is opposed to smoking, but cannot take the social pressure and starts smoking, then he has no one to blame but himself for not being confident enough to talk with smokers without smoking himself. The solution is NOT telling everyone else to stop smoking.

    Now for the health issues: Yes, some people have asthma or other respiratory issues, and do not do well with smoke. Does this mean everyone has to stop doing a completely legal and enjoyable activity which benefits the intellectual life of the university? If there is a real health problem, then one can simply stay away from the smoke. There are many places on campus where smoking is illegal (like inside all the buildings). However, you should probably learn to deal with smokers, because, in the future you will definitely be around smoke at some point in your life. If you would like to talk to smokers without getting second hand smoke, then talk to them in haggar, when they are not smoking, or kindly let them know the situation. However, it is unjust to ask EVERYONE to stop something they enjoy because there may be a few negative externalities. As long as no one is being forced to risk their health, there is no real problem. It is not just to impose the minority’s wish upon the majority if what the majority is doing brings more good to the community than what the minority would have them be forced to do.

    As for students who are afraid of becoming addicted. I have never heard of anyone who became addicted unless they actually smoked a cigarette. Second hand smoke cannot build an addiction, and if people are becoming addicted through second hand smoke, there is a larger issue going on.

    If these people who do not smoke feel “excluded,” we need to ask ourselves a question: who is doing the excluding, the smokers or the non-smokers? I would argue that non-smokers exclude themselves from the “culture” of UD. I know many people who hate smoking, and who nonetheless socialize with smokers with no negative health effects and are a huge part of the “culture” of UD.

    Lancaster argues that, “If we really examine UD’s mission and history, we should conclude that smoking should be a fading practice on campus.” Actually, if we examine the mission (as I have shown), we would conclude that smoking contributes to the mission of UD; and if we examine the history, we would conclude that we should be smoking indoors during class.

    We are dedicated to “seeking truth”, and no one is denying that smoking is unhealthy for the smoker’s body. No one is ignoring this truth. However, it is a free country, and if individuals choose to smoke (moderately or immoderately), it is not for one man to impose his beliefs on the many, especially when the consequences would be a DECREASE in our aptitude for seeking truth, and would hurt the common good and UD’s mission which is to foster a community of independent scholars.

    Finally, Lancaster states: “As an addiction to smoking leads to the blackening of the lungs, so the culture of smoking at UD leads to the dampening of all the other wonderful aspects of UD’s community.” I believe that smoking encourages the wonderful aspects of UD’s community while NOT excluding anyone, save for those who exclude themselves because of unrealistic fears or an elitist judgement of smokers. As for the few with real health problems? Unfortunately, until we enter the City of God, there will always be a few negative externalities to any cultural practice which benefits the common good.

    • Hello Junior! (Great name 😉

      This is Colin Lancaster, and I would like to have an opportunity to reply to your objections.

      First, to answer your question and give you clarification on how I, as a Freshman student as you graciously pointed out, would have smoking leave the UD campus, I shall say this. A ban on smoking on the campus is something that should not happen, smoking is fully legal and is completely up to students whether to partake in this damaging, costly, and addictive habit. I would, however, prefer to see a UD campus where students choose to change the culture and decrease the amount of smoking.

      Second, your statement that smoking does more to facilitate discussion and that non-smokers have less intellectual discussions because they do not smoke, I simply find to be illogical. Those who are non-smoking students have robust discussions with their peers in many of their day. Additionally, having an addiction that causes you to take frequent breaks from your STUDIES cannot be good for developing reliable and good study habits. What about having to take frequent breaks from studying can be good for learning?

      Let’s take a second to talk about how the very act of smoking is an act of defying common sense, and is a refutation of the type of scholarship we strive for at UD. According to the Center for Disease Control, “Smoking causes cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung diseases, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis… Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including more than 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day”. “(https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm) We have UNDENIABLE PROOF that smoking causes a variety of terrible and often fatal diseases. We also have UNDENIABLE PROOF that the act of smoking leads to an addictive habit that is incredibly hard to quit and is expensive to maintain. At the University of Dallas, we ascribe to scholasticism and the following of the scientific method to find truth. We also are a Catholic University and ascribe to the teaching of stewardship of the gifts of God. Over the years, it has become undeniable clear that smoking leads to numerous diseases and is a major cause of death. Why, then is it so hard to see that the continuation of smoking at UD is a refutation of logic, abandonment of true scholasticism, is ignoring irrefutable scientific evidence, and is a desecration of the gifts of our bodies?

      It is clear that smoking cigarettes causes great damage to the health of the person smoking the cigarette, but what about the damage done to those who only get a whiff of the smoke? Again, let us consult the CDC to see if there is any damage at all. “Secondhand smoke exposure contributes to approximately 41,000 deaths among nonsmoking adults… each year… Secondhand smoke causes stroke, lung cancer, and coronary heart disease in adults.” (https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/secondhand_smoke/index.htm) Not only is the act of smoking damaging to the smoker, but also can pose serious risks to others who are just around those smoking. “Junior” also states that “Second hand smoke cannot build an addiction”. This is BLATANTLY FALSE. According to a study done by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, “‘These results show that even limited secondhand smoke exposure delivers enough nicotine to the brain to alter its function,” said NIDA Director Nora D. Volkow, M.D. “Chronic or severe exposure could result in even higher brain nicotine levels, which may explain why secondhand smoke exposure increases vulnerability to nicotine addiction”. (https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/moderate-levels-secondhand-smoke-deliver-nicotine-brain) Not only are smokers hurting their own health and the health of others, they are becoming addicted to cigarettes and leading others to addiction as well. CLEARLY voluntary non smokers have VERY good reason to stay away from smokers, no matter how great the discussion is. How can smokers criticize non smokers for staying away from discussions smokers are having when the non-smokers have reason, scholasticism, and scientific evidence to back them up, whereas the smoker’s basis for their argument is that non-smokers are excluding themselves from participating in “the culture”?

      And we have not even discussed the effects of cigarette smoke on those who medically cannot be around it. The numbers of those who are asthmatic or have an intolerance to cigarette smoke are much greater than most would ever realize. These students must plan out their daily walks to class, the cafeteria, and all places students must frequent so that they will not be around cigarette smoke. They are incredibly excluded from much of the student life happening. They cannot go to TGIT or other popular social events because of the haze that would hurt them.

      That said, smokers do not have to stop. I would implore them to quit this terrible habit which is most certainly hurting themselves and others, but it is their right to continue. Those who choose to stay away from those smoking do so because it MAKES SENSE to do so. It is not some unfounded fear or some “elitist judgement of smokers”, as Junior says. It is because smoking poses a real threat to them and they are making a sound decision to stay away from that.

      Again, all this said, I do not believe that students should be banned from smoking. It is the individual’s choice. No one can or should take that choice away. It is the choice that gives knowledge real value because only when one has attained real knowledge of an issue can they make a sound choice.

      Smoking is a cultural black spot at UD. It excludes many from social events and from everyday discussions with their peers that are essential for growth. It is not fair to tell smokers to stop smoking, and I hope that does not ever happen. However, there is nothing wrong with putting out real evidence of why smoking is bad for people and the community, and hoping that the culture may be changed.

      Best regards from yet another silly Freshman hoping to do some good in the world and his community,

      Colin Lancaster

      Oh, and Junior, thought you may want to give this article a read. It was in last week’s edition, might find it interesting. http://udallasnews.com/2017/09/20/anonymous-criticism-where-is-credit-due/

      Enjoy! 😉

    • Hey man, do what you want and be a smoker if you want to, but the idea that smoking enhances anything is absurd. It’s a net negative. It’s expensive, unhealthy, and unattractive. The only reason you light a cigarette is either to relieve the withdrawal pangs from your last cigarette, or to look cool when you smoke your first cigarette. Cigarette addiction is drug addiction. It is not part of what makes UD great, and neither is the ability of UD’s students to write hundreds of words in support of a pedantic argument like this. You say it’s a beneficial social activity, but smoking is inherently antisocial because it makes you smell bad and necessitates going outside at regular intervals. Any nonsmoker who indulges you does it purely out of polite sympathy.

      Here’s a better argument in support of UD’s smokers: They are addicts who are enslaved to tobacco and nicotine. Some of the are so disillusioned that they claim cigarettes are magical conversation-enhancing little sticks of pure UD Core. I’m not asking you to respect them, how could you? However, as human beings they deserve your sympathy, so please let them smoke in some designated area and don’t be too hard on them. This hurts them more than it hurts you.

      I’ll do a paragraph by paragraph response. Sorry I won’t match your word count. It turns out that the truth can be more easily expressed than the mess of an argument you’ve presented.

      “First, who is to judge which “fun quirks” actually are “essential for creating a beautiful community for independent scholars” and which “are not”?
      This question is very important, because “culture” generally is stronger, more lasting, and more unifying, if it comes from the people and not the administration. Lancaster does not say how this culture should be changed, but there is a huge difference between a freshman trying to persuade the masses through argument and the free press, and advocating for an administrative ban of all tobacco on campus. I would like some clarification on how Lancaster thinks we should get rid of the smoking culture.”
      -The best way to get rid of the smoking culture is to be honest about what smoking is: a 100% unnecessary waste of time and money. Also, addiction isn’t a fun quirk.

      “Secondly, I do not see how smoking “harms more than helps” the” culture of UD” if this “culture”, as Lancaster defines it, is primarily a culture dedicated to fostering people to become “independent scholars.” I would like to know how, exactly, the smoker is deterring himself or others from becoming independent scholars. Lancaster says that smoking deters non-smokers from conversing with smokers which, undoubtedly, can hurt non-smokers excluded from developing their intellects though conversation with smokers, and can also deter the smokers from developing their intellects through conversation with non-smokers. However, would the alternative encourage more intellectual conversation or not?”
      -After graduation you will hopefully realize that it’s more important to be smart and healthy than intellectual. UD also has a Pro-life culture. Fostering drug addiction is anti-life. UD has a politically conservative culture. Cigarettes are highly taxed to exploit addicts in order to empower the state.

      “I would argue that smoking does more in bringing people together and encourages more intellectual debate (thus enhancing the UD culture of “independent scholarship”) than a student body which does not smoke. If this non-smoking was imposed by law (though Lancaster does not argue for this) from the administration, the negative effects would be even worse. Thus, I think that you Lancaster is not considering the unforeseen consequences of stopping people from smoking, and is not seeing how smoking actually encourages more intellectual debate than not smoking.”
      -You can have an intellectual debate without cigarettes. The ancient Greeks didn’t have tobacco. What you really want is an excuse to light another cigarette before you go back inside to do something which is actually productive. When you’re addicted to nicotine you only feel comfortable enough to have a conversation when you’re getting your fix. Nonsmokers feel this comfortable all the time, so approach them.

      “I believe Lancaster’s real issue with smoking on campus, centers around his claim that smoking excludes certain non-smokers in social situations. This is regrettable. However, if we are aiming at a community of independent scholarship–and assuming we agree that getting people together to talk is one of the best ways to encourage this–I would ask Lancaster this: Generally speaking, are smokers or non-smokers more open to inviting others to talk, introducing themselves to strangers, and listening to and offering diverse points of view? I would argue that it is the smokers who generally meet more students, debate more passionately, and invite more people into intellectual discussions.”
      -Prove it, and it still won’t matter. Even if you collect the data and show that smokers are more open to conversation, the smokers are still killing themselves. As for everybody else, you’re not missing out on much.

      “I am not saying that this cannot be done without smoking. However, it is true (whether you like it or not) that many of UD’s most outspoken and social students do smoke and use smoking as a means of meeting new people, talking, and encouraging intellectual debate. Smoking is not the end, but it contributes to a relaxing and enlightening intellectual conversation. I cannot tell you how many times I have had great conversations with smokers who were taking a break from study to have a cigarette. If they were not smokers, they would have been less likely to be standing in the same place for 10 minutes, allowing me to talk with them. Many times I would smoke with them. However, most of the time I would just talk. The cigarette (and the way it encourages people to stop what they are doing, go outside and simply stand still for a while) encourages reflection and conversation which would otherwise be lacking. This is how smoking contributes to the intellectual life of UD.”
      -Maybe nonsmokers would be more likely to stand around outside if they didn’t have to suffer witnessing the pungent suicide of their classmates. Why not take a 10 minute break to sniff flowers, or whistle? Do you think students were less likely to debate in the 70’s when smoking was allowed indoors? As far as outspoken and social students, don’t put them on a pedestal. Study hard, graduate, and move on because your UD education should be used for more than just chats on the mall.

      • “Further, I have never met a smoker at UD who has refused to talk with someone because this someone would not smoke with him. However, I have met students who refuse to talk with other students (or judged them and refused to even associate with them) because these other students are smokers.”
        -You’re an adult, and you’re not entitled to friends. Have you ever met a UD smoker who refused to hang out indoors because they couldn’t smoke? If you choose to smoke you choose to stink, and some people don’t like that. Also, have you ever noticed that there are more smokers who are willing to date nonsmokers than there are nonsmokers willing to date smokers? The same sort of anecdotal argument works against your point.

        “Next, Lancaster says that “Some upperclassmen have actually encouraged freshmen to take up smoking as a way of relating to others and carrying on a conversation.” Is there something wrong with this? We are all adults here, and persuading a free individual to do something which is completely legal is fine in a free country. If one is opposed to smoking, but cannot take the social pressure and starts smoking, then he has no one to blame but himself for not being confident enough to talk with smokers without smoking himself. The solution is NOT telling everyone else to stop smoking.”
        -Because smoking is a net negative that will kill you, encouraging others to smoke is anti-life. We’re all adults here, so how about a round of axe juggling?

        “Now for the health issues: Yes, some people have asthma or other respiratory issues, and do not do well with smoke. Does this mean everyone has to stop doing a completely legal and enjoyable activity which benefits the intellectual life of the university? If there is a real health problem, then one can simply stay away from the smoke. There are many places on campus where smoking is illegal (like inside all the buildings). However, you should probably learn to deal with smokers, because, in the future you will definitely be around smoke at some point in your life. If you would like to talk to smokers without getting second hand smoke, then talk to them in haggar, when they are not smoking, or kindly let them know the situation. However, it is unjust to ask EVERYONE to stop something they enjoy because there may be a few negative externalities. As long as no one is being forced to risk their health, there is no real problem. It is not just to impose the minority’s wish upon the majority if what the majority is doing brings more good to the community than what the minority would have them be forced to do.”
        -1. Addiction is not enjoyable, it’s slavery. If you enjoy slavery, I think there are some fetish websites you might want to check out. You do you. 2. Denying the health risks against mountains of evidence and 100 million deaths in the 20th century without citing any empirically accountable benefits is sloppy academia. Maybe you should study rather than standing on the mall smoking. 3. The majority of UD’s students don’t smoke. 4. People with asthma or other smoking-triggered conditions deserve a livable campus more than you and your friends deserve to talk about Moby Dick in carbon monoxide-rich comfort.

        “As for students who are afraid of becoming addicted. I have never heard of anyone who became addicted unless they actually smoked a cigarette. Second hand smoke cannot build an addiction, and if people are becoming addicted through second hand smoke, there is a larger issue going on.”
        – These students shouldn’t be afraid of addiction, they should be afraid of the harmful toxins in secondhand smoke that kill 46,000 people each year.

        “If these people who do not smoke feel “excluded,” we need to ask ourselves a question: who is doing the excluding, the smokers or the non-smokers? I would argue that non-smokers exclude themselves from the “culture” of UD. I know many people who hate smoking, and who nonetheless socialize with smokers with no negative health effects and are a huge part of the “culture” of UD.”
        -This is a classic example of how being smart now will pay off in the future. Unless your goal is to be a UD undergrad for the rest of your life, you have an incredible amount to gain socially from not being an addict. You can function well in an office for hours (opening the way for higher paying jobs and promotions), impress people who you’re attracted to more easily, travel by plane without stress, and live a healthy, happy life. Fitting into the UD culture isn’t worth sacrificing those things. This University likes to toot its own horn, but the fact is that you need to focus on thriving after graduation. Also, what makes them a “huge” part of the culture of UD? The majority of UD students don’t smoke. Maybe they’re a huge part of TGIT (By the way, this isn’t unique, lots of Universities do similar events on Thursdays, and bars usually have student night on Thursday) or the Old Mill weekend scene, but do the majority of UD students attend these events? Could the Rat hold all of UD’s students? Maybe smoking is linked to other reckless behavior, such as staying out until 1am Friday morning.

        “Lancaster argues that, “If we really examine UD’s mission and history, we should conclude that smoking should be a fading practice on campus.” Actually, if we examine the mission (as I have shown), we would conclude that smoking contributes to the mission of UD; and if we examine the history, we would conclude that we should be smoking indoors during class.”
        -If you think that your health is less important than UD’s mission and history, you don’t think highly enough of yourself. You have dignity, and you were created in the image of God. Any institution or culture that threatens your dignity should be changed.

        “We are dedicated to “seeking truth”, and no one is denying that smoking is unhealthy for the smoker’s body. No one is ignoring this truth. However, it is a free country, and if individuals choose to smoke (moderately or immoderately), it is not for one man to impose his beliefs on the many, especially when the consequences would be a DECREASE in our aptitude for seeking truth, and would hurt the common good and UD’s mission which is to foster a community of independent scholars.”
        -Congratulations, you’re a victim of cigarette addiction! Cigarettes don’t increase your aptitude for seeking truth or contribute to the common good. It is common for addicts to fetishise their crutch. You give it supernatural powers to justify its authority and gather others in support. Most UD students don’t start smoking until after they arrive at UD, are you saying that they must not have qualified for admission without this necessary wonder drug?

        “Finally, Lancaster states: “As an addiction to smoking leads to the blackening of the lungs, so the culture of smoking at UD leads to the dampening of all the other wonderful aspects of UD’s community.” I believe that smoking encourages the wonderful aspects of UD’s community while NOT excluding anyone, save for those who exclude themselves because of unrealistic fears or an elitist judgement of smokers. As for the few with real health problems? Unfortunately, until we enter the City of God, there will always be a few negative externalities to any cultural practice which benefits the common good.”
        – Those who exclude smokers are not unrealistic: secondhand smoke kills, and watching your friends die is depressing. Choosing friends wisely is a wonderful characteristic to have. They are being elitist, but by not smoking you are elite because you are not a drug addict.

        I started smoking at UD as a way to make friends, and now I’m finally free from UD and nicotine. I want to encourage all smokers to accept their addiction and research Allen Carr’s Easy Way method for quitting smoking. This is not an ad, just the method I and at least one other Crusader friend used to quit. It’s all about freeing yourself because when you smoke you gain nothing, so when you stop smoking, rather than making a sacrifice, you’re living the life you deserve.

  2. Most stupid article ever. Fact. Smoking causes cancer. Fact. Smoking increases risk of heart attack, stroke and high blood pressure. You’re on a Catholic Campus, so …. Question: WWJD? Well, he chose the classy route and made wine instead of smelly cigarettes for having conversation. Clearly, it was all about the wine when the first scholars set about their intellectual babble. I have a suggestion. Why don’t you all really grow up and leave your bow ties and cigarettes at your expensive dorms, get a shovel, a saw and drive your smoke-stinking cars to Houston or to Port Aransas and go help someone who has a real problem. When you get there, be sure to ask some kid your age who is working like a man to help rebuild his house how important the elitist judgement of smokers is to him, and if any of this makes a damn to him. I’ll be awaiting his reply.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here