“… We (want a smoke-free campus) to show the student body we care about health, and we want campus to be accessible to everyone,” Amelie Rousseau said in an article titled “In-and-out smoke” on the front page of the Oregon Daily Emerald Friday Nov. 5, 2010.
Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines smoke as:
1) a : the gaseous products of burning materials especially of organic origin made visible by the presence of small particles of carbon
b : a suspension of particles in a gas
2) a : a mass or column of smoke
The same dictionary defines free as:
1) a : relieved from or lacking something and especially something unpleasant or burdensome — “free from pain,” “a speech free of political rhetoric” — often used in combination — “error-free”
b : not bound, confined, or detained by force
2) a : having no trade restrictions
b : not subject to government regulation
We must take these definitions into account. First, a smoke-free campus is one relieved from the gaseous products of burning materials, especially of organic origin, made by the presence of small particles of carbon. So I ask, what’s up with all the cars on campus emitting smoke? A smoke-free campus is one in which no smoke enters, be it from cigarettes, cars, restaurants or even the large amount of machinery on campus currently doing renovations and building new University structures. Smoke is an unfortunate, but unavoidable by-product of each example mentioned above. So I say “YES” to a smoke-free campus: free of all things that produce a suspension of particles in a gas or in a mass or column of smoke.
Secondly, we must understand the definition also allows us to interpret smoke-free the same way we understand free trade. Smoke-free is having no smoke restrictions and as not being subject to government regulation. So I say “YES” to a smoke-free campus: free to create smoke in any way. Burning sage or incense, driving cars, using machinery, cooking, mowing the grass, and, dare I say it, smoking weed.
[email protected]