So I just responded to the procurement of cigarettes for a committee, and it turns out that my response elicited different reactions. Some were confused if I was wrong, some also responded that the procurement of cigarettes was common. So, before I reveal my response, I remember that this article is not just about cigarettes and perhaps it is bigger than that. That is why reading this article is important for you to do thoroughly.



This article is about the environment, specifically in the academic environment among students in a faculty. There, I almost always find a cigarette party specifically for the committee for every event that I attend. Administratively, the general view states that cigarettes cannot be listed freely in the budget or reporting of an activity. So, how can the committee get cigarettes? You must know that cigarettes are a "common" type of consumption. Sometimes, food and drinks are also treated like cigarettes and must be fulfilled in certain conditions.


Regarding consumption, especially food and drinks, the committee gets it equally or without special distribution, except sometimes there is a distinction between the committee and participants of the event. The focus is that every committee gets the same consumption share. Sometimes the type of consumption is determined democratically by the entire committee. We may consider that democratic deliberation and equal consumption share are a manifestation of togetherness, transparency and solidarity.


"Isn't logic collapse if humans are without logistics?"


Is smoking also a result of togetherness and solidarity of the committee? I see that often it is not. It is not my intention to say that smoking is a purely negative manifestation of that question. But as in the narrative above, the budget for cigarettes is "common". Its presence in certain conditions is a collective awareness and can be summoned by saying, "ehm ... the cigarette." The treasurer or chairman will do a little touch to procure it. Because it is so common, I often find that non-smokers are not asked what "cigarettes" they want and it is expressed as "which kind of cigarette".


Is humanity related to "this cigarette"? In this article, I assume it is. I think that it could be very easy to abandon humanity with alternative "common" behavior, and that is "common". Maybe, after reading this article, some people still believe that non-smokers are "common" not to get their "cigarettes"? Definitely don't.


Apart from the influence of "common" behavior alternatives as mentioned above, the idea of "non-smoker cigarette" still seems vulnerable to collapse. Like when non-smokers say, "It's okay (no problem with cigarette budgeting without considering non-smokers)." I might say it for the reason that the non-smoker cigarette version is something trivial to ask for. Remember, if so, why can smokers easily request their cigarettes, which for others, the non-smoker's cigarettes, are considered trivial? I think this is again about commonality, adding to the collective view that does not support equal voices in determining their respective "cigarettes".


If our group wants to change this biased "commonality," we can make it a shared understanding and spirit. We also need to be aware that mandate holders, such as the head of the organizing committee or influential people in the committee, need to be actively involved in fulfilling the rights of each committee member. We need to do more than "common". Because if not, neglect will easily infect any group, including a student committee, not only about cigarettes but also other "common" things that may be more vital.

Original Source: https://lpmaksara.home.blog/2021/04/26/rokoknya-nonperokok-dan-kesetaraan-konsumsi/