Opinion articles 'agitating'

submitted by Sarah Paige

April 2, 2007 —

Mary Oakley was quite right in stating that "we all have our little pet peeves." Unlike Oakley, my "little pet peeve" is not simply walking past a smoker on my way to class. My most recently acquired pet peeve is reading opinion pieces such as Oakley's "Smoking senseless, unhealthy" in the Valley Vanguard.

Besides stating the obvious, that smoking is an unhealthy habit, I believe Oakley approaches the topic in a completely off-putting way. After first reading it, I felt as if I had just been lectured by my own mother, rather than an opinion writer in a college newspaper. Maybe it was the simplicity of the piece, or rather Oakley's repetition of the same basic idea without any real substance, but it left me feeling completely unconvinced, even highly agitated.

What I find amusing is Oakley's complete lack of respect for those who do choose to smoke. I think what she fails to understand is that it is a choice that an individual makes, and that not all choices revolve around what Oakley likes and what Oakley dislikes. Sure, smoking is unhealthy, that is apparent. It would be safe to say that the vast majority of smokers are entirely aware of the risks, yet continue to smoke. While Oakley may find this confusing, it is not her job to understand every choice that an individual makes. That is the beauty of the individual; it does not always follow logic and often defies reason.

Oakley seems to regard those who smoke as quite lowly, even alluding to them as if they are akin to common junkies, frantically trying to get their fix in before class. I could sit and count how many times she uses the word "disgusting" in the piece, but I'd rather not.

"Smoking is a habit that is unhealthy and can cause you to have diseases that will make you miserable and, in the end, kill you." Besides the apparent juvenile quality of this sentence, Oakley takes the liberty of assumption without presenting any facts. She is essentially saying almost everyone who smokes will get cancer, and everyone who has ever had cancer as a result of smoking is miserable. No. I feel as if I do not even have to elaborate here. I feel that it would have been more appropriate for Oakley to say that smoking will increase your risk of cancer, and left it at that.

I am curious to see whether or not Oakley will ever feel the need to comment on obesity, an issue that is just as pressing and important as smoking. Oakley was able to write this article bashing smokers for their nasty habits because it is socially acceptable to do so, where it may be less so to comment on the questionable lifestyle choices of those who are overweight. Even though huge numbers of people are dying because of diseases related to obesity, I highly doubt she regards it as being anywhere near as serious as smoking. In a way, it almost seems as if Oakley believes that smoking is related to a person's character, and I find this extremely offensive. I can't help but wonder if she shudders in disgust when she sees a fellow student eating some of our greasier, fried fare in the cafeteria, "puzzled" as to why they are consciously destroying their own health. Or if she wonders if they are overeating as a mechanism for handling their stress level. Perhaps, like the smokers, they should follow Oakley's suggestions and put down their forks in exchange for a session of yoga or a hot bath.

Basically, what I am trying to say is this; I am tired of reading opinion pieces such as this in the Vanguard, full of holes and written by people who seem to only know how to preach. I would much rather read an article about the dangers of smoking if it were full of evidence in support of the writer's view, rather than their reiterated belief that smoking is icky. The article written by Oakley in regards to premarital sex was enough to irritate me, but it was only after reading "Smoking senseless, unhealthy" that I felt the need to comment. I think it would be important to note that I am indeed not a smoker.

Sarah Paige Student