When I first arrived on Lewis & Clark College's campus for a tour, I can honestly say the only upsetting aspect of the school was the amount of Designated Smoking Areas (DSAs) on campus. With eight DSAs on the undergraduate campus alone, I was shocked how readily available these smoking areas are to students. Lewis & Clark College is one of the many universities/colleges in the United States enabling, to some extent, the use of tobacco products. While there are studies proving the benefits of introducing DSAs to college campuses, I personally find them unfortunate features to the college community. My main reasoning is that, in the words of Dr. Nancy Rigotti, director of tobacco research and treatment at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, “College students are playing with fire, putting themselves at risk of a lifelong addiction to nicotine." While smoking among college students continues to rise, the trend "threatens to reverse the decline in U.S. adult smoking that we have witnessed over the past half-century.” Regardless of what age people begin to smoke cigarettes, something must be done to discontinue this unhealthy trend.

Upon researching possible past movements deterring people from smoking, I came across one that created quite a controversy. Five years ago this month, the Food and Drug Administration released photos documenting the damage smoking cigarettes can do to the human body.

Federal health officials selected the above nine photos to be printed on the top half of cigarette packages. This movement would have been the first major change in warning labels in more than a quarter of a century. The graphic images of blackened lungs, rotting teeth and an abscessed lower lip would give current smokers a glimpse of the unvarnished truth and hopefully persuade new smokers from continuing and deter non-smokers from beginning.

Big Tobacco, however, sued the FDA. Much like how the Oil Industry used their money to hide the detrimental effects of fossil fuels, Big Tobacco used their money to hide the gruesome effects of smoking cigarettes. In their lawsuit, Big Tobacco argued that these graphic warning labels "cross the line into governmental anti-smoking advocacy." In addition, their lawyers note that the FDA selected the images not to inform, but rather incite fear. Big Tobacco argued that these images were emotional and stripped the tobacco users of their right to make an educational decision. After a lengthy lawsuit, the industry won and Federal Judge Leon declared the FDA's requirement of graphic labels unconstitutional: “The government’s interest in advocating a message cannot and does not outweigh plaintiff’s First Amendment right to not be the government’s messenger."

While I can see the rights and wrongs for both sides of this lawsuit, my personal beliefs toward cigarettes make me bias towards the FDA's argument. Since elementary school, I have been taught about the harmful effects of smoking cigarettes. However, most of these lectures were fact and number based. While these facts are definitely important, it is a fair question to ask if they convey the same message as the images above.

Studies prove that 94 percent of Americans know that smoking cigarettes causes cancer. Although only 17.8 percent of Americans smoke cigarettes daily, these numbers do not add up. If you know the cold hard facts—such as smoking's direct link to cancer—why would you choose to engage in the harmful act?

In terms of argumentation, intellectual arguments, such as this lawsuit, are often approached with logical and factual statements. This lawsuit shows Big Tobacco and the FDA engaging in two separate types of arguing. Big Tobacco used intellectual argumentation and used facts to their advantage while the FDA used emotional argumentation and pathos. Emotion can come into play in cases where there is a trail by jury. This is because human beings are emotional creatures that respond strongly to emotional stimuli. It is proven that pathos arguments are more effective with uneducated audiences that are too lazy to think things through. While 94 percent of Americans know that smoking causes cancer, 17.8 percent are still smoking. Would this change if emotional stimuli, such as the pictures above, were posted on the packaging of cigarettes, college DSAs or played on TV?

The FDA's five year old controversial movement cannot be the end of our fight against cigarettes. The New York Times writes, "The Food and Drug Administration has deferred action for too long, and must meet the tobacco companies with the same vigor, audacity and urgency that the industry has employed so effectively for decades." Big Tobacco has owned Americans for too long and it is the FDA's responsibility to give Americans the public health service the law requires.

I believe we must slowly chip away at the hold the Tobacco Company has over America. Schools such as Seattle University chipping away by making their campuses tobacco/smoking free. Although this is a small step towards deterring students from smoking—and therefore hindering their addictions—a few small steps eventually add up.

So ask yourself, is there anything I can do today to keep America healthy?