daily nebraskan
monday, april 7, 1980
page 4
t r-
Passive smoker criticizes
fellow workers' habits
BOSTON-I am, according to the New
England Journal of Medicine, a passive
smoker. I did not mean to be one. My
parents did not raise me to be one. But
there you are. The New England Journal
of Medicine says I am one, and it ought
to know.
What I meant to be was a plain old non
smoker. It fits my self-image better. It fits
my habits better.
I am, you see, one of the lucky people
who choked on the first green-tipped, -personally
labelled, sweet sixteen cigarette
that ever touched my lips in. 1957.1 count
this as a piece of biological luck, not unlike
my inability to get drunk.
Years ago, I discovered that I fell asleep
before I ever found the right lampshade for
my head. So, I end up dozing instead of
drunk, the way I end up coughing instead
of cancerous.
It is not my virtue but my body chem
istry which keeps me from falling down the
path of assorted evils. If my jaw would
only lock at the sight of assorted choco
lates, I would be perfect.
But this morning I am in no position to
gloat.
Two men -from the University of Calif
ornia, San Diego, studied men and women
at work. Some of the 2,000 worked in
smoky places and some in smoke-free
places. Now, the researchers have publish
ed the first study that proves what we
knew all along, deep down in our lungs:
Non-smokers are getting zonked by the
smokers at work.
Professor James White and Dr. Herman
Froeb put it more carefully in their paper.
The way they figured it, non-smokers have
about the same amount of small airways
impairment as people who smoke up to
about 11 cigarettes a day. Sounding like
the Surgeon General's warning, they wrote
that "chronic exposure to tobacco smoke
in the work environment is deleterious to
the non-smoker."
Informally, Professor White said simply,
"We know that if a person works around
another smoker for a period of time, he
will experience lung damage. Now whether
it will impair him or cause emphysema, we
don't know. But who wants it?"
Not I, said the little red hen. But, at
this very moment, I am sitting here at my
desk passively smoking.
The man behind me, who is otherwise
a charming neighbor, smokes cigars. They
are not really offensive, he has explained to
me patiently and in some detail, because
they are GOOD cigars. It's the cheap cigars
that smell, he says, pointing one stinking
stogie at another. I fail to make this class
distinction.
Three yeards away, the environmental
reporter sits attached to his pipe. The
smoke that surrounds it, would make the
EPA inspector condemn a plant. "It is,' he
admits, puffing thoughtfully, "a contra
diction." All around me are cigarettes whose
smoke is mysteriously attracted to my
magnetic personality. I am convinced that
whenever I change desks in this city room,
the air currents In my office shift and I am
once again drifting in the Smoke Stream.
My situation isn't the worst by far. I
have a friend who goes home every night
and washes that Marlboro man right out of
her hair. I have another who actually goes
into the garage for a breath of fresh air.
I sympathize with smokers, although I
no longer buy them ashtrays. (I have a
friend who uses my daughter's dollhouse
bathtub for his butts, but I promised not
to tell a soul.) I imagine that stopping
smoking is like stopping eating.
So, I don't want to ban smoke just
because I don't want to work with banned
smokers. But I don't want to inhale the
stuff, either.
What I would like is to find the national
scene more in line with the Minnesota
Clean Air Act. What I would like is to
extend the airline policy to the ground,
wherever possible, and divide the work
place into zones.
As the New England Journal of Medi
cine editorialized: ". . .the feelings and
psychological reactions of smokers are as
vehement as those of non-smokers. But
now, for the first time, we have a quantita
tive measurement of a physical change-a
fact that may tip the scales in favor of non
smokers." Well, it's tipped my scale. This morning,
at least, one more passive smoker is feeling
aggressive.
(c) 1980, The Boston Glob Newspaper Co.
Washington Post Writers Group
Mm v r ;
(?wfc f artfii wants .
VJSk to compromise J
' rSifi Win thft Shah?
Iranian immigration
tide should be halted
As the hostage charade contin
ues in Iran, ideas such as those
proposed by Sen. S. I. Hayakawa,
R-Calif., almost start sounding
good.
He proposes that the World War
II policy of interning all Japanese
Americans in camps be applied to
the 55,000 or more Iranian na
tionals in this country.
While that idea is a little far
fetched, it seems that the 11,000
Iranians, reported in U.S. News
and World Report, that have en
tered this country since American
hostages were taken is a slap in the
face.
President Carter's crackdown
on Iranians in the United States is
a real "barn burner" when Iran
ians continue to freely enter the
country and 5,500 Iranians resis
ting deportation remain fighting
court orders which could continue
for years. Many of the cases have
been discontinued from lack of
money for the hearings.
Immigration agents have
located only 104 of the 226 Iran
ian diplomats who were ordered
to leave the country by the State
Department. So we discover that
our actions at home aren't any
stronger than the messages we
send to Tehran.
Carter Administration officials
insist there is nothing inconsistent
between Carter's crackdown and
continued entry of Iranians into
the country. But it appears our
president's flip-flopping leadership
style shines through again.
Frustration has reached such
proportions that a recent Wall
Street Journal editorial suggested
direct military action-dropping a
force of paratroopers into the 27
acre U.S. Embassy as a rescue
operation.
But as the Tehran militants con
tinue to play musical hostages and
humilate our country, why
shouldn't frustrated Americans
start thinking about taking drastic
measures?
It's been far too long for the 50
American hostages in Tehran and
time to consider measures other
than twiddling our thumbs and
avoiding primary campaigns be
cause of a "hostage crisis."
Harry Allen Strunk
s 6 fe edit?
The letter written by Amy Mauh concerning the impo
sition of the death penalty provides us with two situa
tions, one in which the death penalty should be employ
ed, an, the other in which such employment would
constitute a "waste of another person who might become
a useful, good member of our society." Thus, in her view,
one can make the simple determination, based on personal
feelings, as to when the death penalty is appropriate and
when it is not. But such an argument, interesting as it is,
lacks in substance and merit, for it negates the legal and
moral issues involved .
On the legal side, it has been argued by members of the
Supreme Court, particularly in Furnam vs. Georgia, that
the selective and capricious use of the death penalty is
"cruel and unusual" in its application. However, Miss
Mauh suggests that it is acceptable to arbitrarily impose
the death penalty, ostensibly because her intended victim
"seems to be a very violent man" who would prefer to
die, while the "angry 17-year-old" gains a stay of execu
tion. Yet both have murdered; both have taken the life of
another human being.
From the moral point of view, one can argue as St.
Augustine did that those who have committed crimes
against man must be spared in order that they can repent
for their misdeeds. Punishment must not suffer in lenien
cy or severity, but must be appropriate for the crime.
Again, the suggestion is made that we throw this philo
sophy out the window and substitute for it a system of
administering a justice that calls for an inconsistent appli
cation of a punishment that is irrevocable.
So where do we draw the line? Under which circum
stances can we say that tfus man deserves to live no longer
while that man does deserve to live, when both have
committed the same crime? Miss Mauh seems quite sure
that Katherine Brooks murderer would be happier "to
just be dead," and that death would give him peace. But
such a notion rejects the possibility of rehabilitation, the
circumstances of the crime, and the character of the de
fendant. Miss Mauh admits that she knows very little
about the defendant, and yet she somehow has the insight
to determine that he would prefer death to life. I fail to
see how she can justify her position.
And finally, Miss Mauh writes that keeping Kathy
Brooks murderer alive would be cruel and unusual
punishment for her friends and family. But what of the
friends and family of James Richardson? Do they feel any
less worse because his murderer was a youth of 17? Would
Miss Mauh's argument be the same had not her two
friends been involved? Choosing one of the murderers to
die while the 6ther lives might indeed comfort those par
ties involved, but this cannot be the issue of importance.
What matters is whether such arbitrariness is acceptable to
society. Miss Mauhs proposal is not.
Dana London
Political Science
Support appreciated
Students for Responsible Energy Decisions would like
to thank all the people who have signed the petition in
support of LB954-the Energy Conservation and Inde
pendence Act, also known as the Omnibus Energy Bill. As
of March 25, there were over 300 signatures on the peti
tion. SRED will meet with Governor Thone to present the
petition to him and to discuss his stand on energy issues
on Thursday, March 27 at 11:15 a jn. SRED urges any of
you who are interested in the efficient use of energy re
sources and the development of decentralized alternative
energy production to show up at the Governor's office at
that time. Everybody may not be able to fit in the office,
but your presence will be felt.
Different reason
Evan Stover
SRED
Andre Everett omitted at least one factor I know of
that helps international students choose UNL Td like to
share it with anyone interested because it offers a different
perspective. , '
In the summer of 1978 I roomed with a Vietnamese
student. I was curious as to why he chose UNL. He had a
simple answer.
"Other schools not accept my English scores, he said.
"Nebraska do." I
Whether this is good or bad is up to you, but to me,
Harvard of the Plains seems a long way off.
Tom Prentiss
Junior, Journalism
