De Minimis
  • Home
  • ABOUT US
  • Podcast
  • Your Learned Friend
  • Anonymous Feedback
  • Art
  • Get published!
  • Constitution
  • Archive
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2017 >
      • Semester 2 (Volume 12) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (election issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
    • 2016 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 9) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 10) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (Election Issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
        • Issue 13 (test)
    • 2015 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 7) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
      • Semester 2 (Volume 8) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
    • 2014 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 5) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
      • Semester 2 (Volume 6) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 12
    • 2013 >
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • 2012 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 1) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 2) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12

An Unhealthy Opinion

28/5/2019

 
Issue 12, Semester 1, 2019

GRIMALDUS

The University of Melbourne prides itself on being a safe, and inclusive, space for all those who find themselves within its grand old grounds. As part of its commitment to healthy spaces, the University banned all smoking (and vaping, chewing, etc.) on any campus. The powers-that-be recognised that not only can second-hand smoke be injurious in the long term, but it also presents an immediate danger to asthmatics (such as myself), and others who are differently-abled. This is to say nothing of the sheer unpleasantness inherent to walking through a cloud of someone else’s already-circulated, foul-smelling air, multiple times a day. ​
Picture
This regulation was by no means popular. People resent being told how to live their lives, and especially so when they perceive they are being preached to. The result is that many people simply choose to ignore the ban (or are unaware of it). At the law school, this is evident from the pack of nicotine junkies taking a hit right outside the front doors, nearly constantly throughout the day. To be clear, I bear no actual ill-will towards my friends who duck outside for a cigarette, but it’s incumbent upon all of us to consider the ways in which our actions affect those around us, and change our behaviour accordingly. Thus, this critique is more than a fist-shaking rant about a minor inconvenience. The health and accessibility issues this topic raises are serious, and should be taken seriously.

No smoker is unaware of the harmful effects of their smoking to themselves, no doubt having had it pointed out to them on a regular basis. However, they may be less aware of the impact their smoking has on those around them. Statistics on second-hand smoke morbidity are difficult to come by in Australia, however, according to The Cancer Council (Vic), for every ten smokers that die in comparable societies, such as the US and UK, one person dies of second-hand smoke exposure. Why should the health of those around you be imperilled, for any reason? Why, for that matter, should non-smokers be left short of breath? Why should asthmatics risk attacks, passing through the miasma of airborne ash that hangs in front of the law school doors on a still day?

Blanket smoking bans, such as the one imposed by UniMelb, raise delicate questions around personal liberty. Such concerns should be heard out. Banning the sale or use of tobacco products in a private setting is a clear overreaction. However, tobacco is like many other drugs, in that externalities creep beyond voluntary users. As a matter of personal opinion, I agree that individuals should be free to do with their bodies as they wish. However, smoking in public places is not a responsible way of exercising that right. It may seem innocuous to many of us, who have grown up with smoking still prevalent amongst large tracts of the population. However, on its harms and merits, smoking in public just doesn’t stack up. There is no other way in which endangering the health of others, to such a degree, would be viewed with such forbearance.

This is not the kind of issue one should have to grin and bear. To the University, I say: please take enforcement of our smoking rules seriously. To those who smoke: please recognise the discomfort you cause, and make moves to mitigate it. I freely acknowledge that I’m a wet blanket — I certainly do hope to succeed in extinguishing something.

Grimaldus is a First Year JD Student.

Smelly Smoker
28/5/2019 04:46:36 pm

Thanks for your thoughtful, respectful article.
Just seeking some clarification:

I gather there is a smoking exclusion zone which extends a certain number of metres (5m? 6m?) from the two entrances into the building. I and seemingly all other MLS staff and student smokers tend to either cross the road to the lawn, duck around either side of the building, or, if it's raining, stand under cover between Porta Via and Porta Via's tables. So, all of those smokers would be outside the exclusion zones.

Is your issue with those smokers in those locations outside the exclusion zones, or just with the occasional smoker who stands in front of the doors, within the exclusion zone? Or... both?

Those smokers who do occasionally smoke in front of the doors, are almost always right on the edge of the road, and /possibly/ outside the smoking exclusion zone.

Obviously anyone smoking within the exclusion zone should stop; hopefully they're responsive to somebody respectfully telling them to bugger off.

:)

Smoker who wants to co-operate
28/5/2019 05:12:25 pm

Hi, same as above, seeking clarification from the author.
Just want to know what else the smokers should be doing. Thanks!

Just want fresh air when outside
29/5/2019 09:13:51 am

But hold on, 'Smelly Smoker' you're saying the exclusion zone likely ends at the front doors (with some metres either side) then it's most unuseful. When non-smokers and asthmatics enter and leave the building they will have to inhale a great deal of smoke. Doesnt matter if smokers have 'ducked' around the side, people are exposed. Also hint, if you're standing near porta via ---you're either in the exclusion zone, or, making the exclusion zone nearby, compltely redundant.

Smelly Smoker
29/5/2019 11:19:51 am

Hey "Just want fresh air when outside", thanks for your reply :)
Are you proposing to ban smoking in public generally? If not, what are you suggesting?

I'm not entirely sure I'm convinced when you say non-smokers and asthmatics experience a 'great deal' of smoke when they have to enter and leave the building. That would only be the case if smokers are in the exclusion zones - which we can all agree they shouldn't be.

Standing between Porta Via itself, and its tables and chairs isn't in the exclusion zone. Besides that, what was the point of your 'hint'?

I'm generally very sympathetic to non-smokers and asthmatics (having myself been an asthmatic who almost died from the condition). But I suspect that the act of walking past smokers (though unpleasant) just isn't, generally, any worse for your well-being than walking from the Haymarket tram stop across a busy, smog-filled intersection. I.e. It's not that bad at all. The same can't be said for sitting in a car/house with your smoking parent, or working in a smoke-filled venue, and slowly being killed. That's fucked. I'm happy to be shown some legit research to thoroughly disprove this suspicion.

What is the impact on asthmatics of walking to MLS and coming within 5 metres of 3 smokers standing around the side of the building? A genuine risk of death? A cough? The inconvenience of taking a puff from your inhaler? Is that inconvenience serious enough to warrant... what? Banning all smoking in open-air public places? Extending the exclusion zone to 50m from the MLS entrances?

Plenty of things in life are occasionally unpleasant to other people. Unpleasantness isn't really the basis for extending exclusion zones. Health concerns might be. But given how much time and research went into developing the University's policy, can somebody show research that warrants the extension of the exclusion zones?

A pack a day keeps the anxiety away
28/5/2019 04:58:58 pm

I crave a dart after reading this

just hook the nicotine to my veins
28/5/2019 05:03:38 pm

cigarettes are for scum
I only pump Juul

#vapenation2019

Moderately ambivalent citizen
28/5/2019 06:05:01 pm

What if we need to smoke to rid our unhealthy mouths of the processed dirt taste of Porta Via 'coffee'?

Carl Fardmann
28/5/2019 07:24:19 pm

I agree, the Porta Via coffee isn't good. I get terrible diarrhoea from it!

Keith
28/5/2019 06:10:50 pm

Sorry, I appreciate your concern. However, suggesting that people who enjoy the sweet sweet pleasure of tobacco and tobacco based smoky tubes (or even bongs) will change their ways out of concern for their fellow man is wishful thinking.
The entire course of human history has clearly highlighted that we have little to no real concern nor empathy for others. Consult one of the many conflicts of the 21st century for a contemporary example.
Is the author seriously suggesting that their woeful plea is a match for the biological make up of mankind?

Keith Squared
28/5/2019 06:22:10 pm

Hey Keith, does your comment’s central thesis also apply to... your own comment?


Keith
28/5/2019 06:29:50 pm

Hello Keith Squared,
I'd say it does. Can't refute your point.
More just highlighting to the author that, despite their intentions, noble as they are, people inherently care little for the wellbeing of others, especially when they are strangers.
But yes, you are under no obligation to take stock in my earlier comment. It's really nothing more than suggesting to the author that they might want to consider swapping out their rose-tinted glasses for something a little clearer.

Anon
28/5/2019 09:21:13 pm

This comment seems to suggest/dog whistle that people who are suffering at the hands of others should give up talking up about how bad the others are, or why they ought to stop causing that suffering, or perhaps how much that suffering sucks.

Substitute 'suffering' for the vector of oppression/abuse of your choice and this post becomes quite victim blamey at worst, and unbelievably cynical at best. This is a sad and unproductive worldview. Basically every path to progress in history has *start* with empathy. Mercantile selfish justifications are not mutually exclusive and is largely not at the opportunity cost of these empathetic and moral arguments.

I say this because 1) it's worth saying because sharing good views is valuable 2) I have nothing better to do 3) You are wrong.

Keith
28/5/2019 10:59:41 pm

Dear 'Anon',
You seem to have not grasped the full meaning of my comment. By all means people should speak up when they feel things are unjust; however, articles such as this are not the drivers of change.
People respond to incentives. Given that a general concern for the wellbeing of others appears not to be an overriding characteristic of mankind; a plea to those partaking in activity which they either (a) enjoy, or (b) are addicted based on consideration of those who have to momentarily come into contact with a modicum of secondhand smoke will likely have very little impact.
Changing behaviour is about incentives. Say for example, smoking within close proximity to the building attracted a significant fine. Such a potential downside may be enough to outweigh the benefit derived smoking activities. This would shift incentives and change behaviour. (Note: I am not suggesting this).
It's rather simple really. We respond to incentives and act to serve our own ends. Even altruism at its core is merely a desire of individuals to derive pleasure from charitable actions, whatever form that may take. I'm not suggesting this makes it wrong, the result is very positive, but it is driven inherently by selfish desires. Some of these desires are just more harmful than others.
Take yourself for example. It's very likely that you like and seek the perceived kudos of standing up for and defending social issues. Therefore, when given the choice between your planned activity of playing with yourself, or defending so called 'victims', you delayed pressing play on the bukkake party or similar open on your browser.

Keith Squared
29/5/2019 11:35:17 am

Keith, you're right about incentives being the most effective means of regulating behaviour. Cool. Freakonomics FTW (is that the correct use of FTW? What does FTW mean?)

But there's just a fishy smelling tone to all of what you're saying. Like it's being said by somebody who swallowed-whole too much Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy "Nihilism" or something... The kind of person you just don't want to find yourself sitting next to at the house party.
Exhibit 1:
"A general concern for the wellbeing of others appears not to be an overriding characteristic of mankind". Glad you put "appears" in there, because, where's your evidence to support this sweeping generalisation?

It "appears" to me that you exhibited a general concern for the psychological and epistemic well-being of the article's author. So much of a concern that you repeatedly commented to set them straight.

Or... that 'appearance' is just wrong?

Regardless, your original comment and follow up just seem to have mis-characterised the article. The author wasn't screaming from the MLS rooftop, "Won't somebody please think of the [asthmatics]!". They were just conveying their experience and health concerns. Cool. No biggie. Thanks.

If there are genuine health concerns about the adequacy of the current smoking exclusion zones (or their enforcement) what, practically, can or should be done?

Let's not get distracted by the fact that human's are selfish pigs and the universe has no meaning. I get it. We're born alone, we die alone - but let's at least consider whether or not the author should die alone in a coughing fit by the vending machine on the Ground Floor.

Keith Squared
29/5/2019 11:39:42 am

Actually, the author did say, "To those who smoke: please recognise the discomfort you cause, and make moves to mitigate it.". So, they were kinda saying "won't somebody please think of the asthmatics".

But somehow, the thrust of what I was saying to you still stands. Steel- (not Straw-) Man their piece in your response to it :)

r/trees
29/5/2019 11:09:53 am

So glad that we now have a forest of trees opposite the law building to turn all that stinky secondhand smoke from these derelict law students and dropkick skaters into fresh oxygen. Photosynthesis <3 <3

Poignant passerby
29/5/2019 06:21:28 pm

It appears the author hasn’t directly answered what exactly they’re after. Honestly though if smokers are acknowledging, and people generally, that it’s bad to smoke in the smoke free zone, then, any other issue you have isn’t directed at smokers. Don’t hate the player hate the game - if you want reform do something about it and don’t try and imbue some sort of unwarranted social policy through the guilt trip approach. Nice article though.


Comments are closed.
    Picture

    Archives

    December 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014

  • Home
  • ABOUT US
  • Podcast
  • Your Learned Friend
  • Anonymous Feedback
  • Art
  • Get published!
  • Constitution
  • Archive
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2017 >
      • Semester 2 (Volume 12) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (election issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
    • 2016 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 9) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 10) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (Election Issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
        • Issue 13 (test)
    • 2015 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 7) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
      • Semester 2 (Volume 8) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
    • 2014 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 5) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
      • Semester 2 (Volume 6) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 12
    • 2013 >
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • 2012 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 1) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 2) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12