The issue: USC considers making the Columbia campus completely tobacco-free
Many sights and sounds contribute to a theme at the University of South Carolina, and attribute a certain air to the campus. A sea of garnet and black, the USC logo plastered on nearly every corner and the mascot printed on various streets and buildings.
There are also cigarette butts.
Littered throughout our historic campus are hundreds — maybe even thousands — of butts.
Not only does smoking pollute the air, but frequently, instead of disposing of smoked cigarettes in trash cans or designated receptacles, people throw them in the gutter or in plant beds.
And those cigarette butts don’t just vanish once they hit the ground; in most cases they are not biodegradable. They are made of plastic, which studies indicate takes an average of about two to 10 years to decompose, while in the meantime draining harsh chemicals into our water.
The current policy at USC is one of no smoking, which, according to Healthy Carolina, has been in effect since 2006. As many students know, this is a policy not strictly enforced.
Understandably, students and faculty should be allowed to determine what they want to do with their bodies and with their funds. But we are allowing the rights of approximately 23 percent of our student body to impede the rights of the other 77 percent, which doesn’t make sense.
Second-hand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in the country. About 3,000 lung cancer deaths are caused by second-hand smoke, and more than 50,000 coronary heart disease–related deaths occur every year, which are all linked to second- hand smoke.
When you breathe in smoke — even from a cigarette you’re not smoking — you’re breathing in almost the same amount of chemicals as the person actually smoking. More than 4,000 chemicals are in tobacco smoke; at least 60 of the 4,000 are carcinogens, which doesn’t include the many others that are equally poisonous.
But the effects reach further than we realize, affecting not just your immediate surroundings. Studies have been done indicating that smoking is more harmful than exhaust from a diesel car.
By instituting a ban, we are not only trying to improve the quality of life of nonsmokers who are being significantly and negatively impacted, but also the quality of
More Like This
In Brief: January 17, 2013
By Amanda Coyne, Austin Price & Andersen Cook | Jan. 17, 2013