Smoke-Free Campus

Champion

6627

Rochester Hills, Michigan

Gold member

Subject: RE: Smoke-Free Campus

gearboy - 2011-06-15 11:48 AM

Smoking, drinking, gambling are all activities that have (relatively) high risks of harm but also trigger dopamine surges in the brain - the very model of addiction.

So's triathlon and bike racing.

In a private and restricted place (like a restaurant), I'm completely against smoking. The 2ndhand smoke issue is impositional, people don't have a choice.

In open air, I view it as a non-issue...people have a choice. Move, leave, do something else. Unspoken, the people grousing about 2ndhand smoke in open areas are, IMHO, activists. They have some kind of axe to grind with smoking. Their argument is that the 2ndhand smoke is unhealthy, disturbing, etc. Let's take a quick poll to see which of these same people are activist against exhaust fumes from cars on their street, BBQ's, tru-green pesticide applications, and certainly, if they were that concerned about fumes, be cleaning their house with pure water, rather than febreeze, fantastik, pledge, or windex. Hell, throw water in your windshield washer reservoir, because when you spritz that windshield, I'm SURE the air intake for the AC doesn't pick up any of that smell and force it on you in the inside of your car. Don't fire up your mower or 2-stroke edger, those are horrible for spewing bad stuff. Wouldn't be in the neighborhood with my kids because of those nasty school bus exhaust fumes. I can't stand hypocritical arguments.

That said, to Alaina's point, if U of M believes this will reduce smoking in the staff, it's their their property, their employee cost, their insurance cost, their perogative. Just my opinion. Now...if it wasn't a state university, it'd be very, very clear. But it's state property...public property. So legally, it gets interesting. I think it would be much more clear if U of M would just prohibit employees from smoking, rather than mandate no smoking across the board.

My Race Log

Master

1920

Ann Arbor, MI

Subject: RE: Smoke-Free Campus

rkreuser - 2011-06-15 8:46 PM

gearboy - 2011-06-15 11:48 AM

Smoking, drinking, gambling are all activities that have (relatively) high risks of harm but also trigger dopamine surges in the brain - the very model of addiction.

So's triathlon and bike racing.

In a private and restricted place (like a restaurant), I'm completely against smoking. The 2ndhand smoke issue is impositional, people don't have a choice.

In open air, I view it as a non-issue...people have a choice. Move, leave, do something else. Unspoken, the people grousing about 2ndhand smoke in open areas are, IMHO, activists. They have some kind of axe to grind with smoking. Their argument is that the 2ndhand smoke is unhealthy, disturbing, etc. Let's take a quick poll to see which of these same people are activist against exhaust fumes from cars on their street, BBQ's, tru-green pesticide applications, and certainly, if they were that concerned about fumes, be cleaning their house with pure water, rather than febreeze, fantastik, pledge, or windex. Hell, throw water in your windshield washer reservoir, because when you spritz that windshield, I'm SURE the air intake for the AC doesn't pick up any of that smell and force it on you in the inside of your car. Don't fire up your mower or 2-stroke edger, those are horrible for spewing bad stuff. Wouldn't be in the neighborhood with my kids because of those nasty school bus exhaust fumes. I can't stand hypocritical arguments.

That said, to Alaina's point, if U of M believes this will reduce smoking in the staff, it's their their property, their employee cost, their insurance cost, their perogative. Just my opinion. Now...if it wasn't a state university, it'd be very, very clear. But it's state property...public property. So legally, it gets interesting. I think it would be much more clear if U of M would just prohibit employees from smoking, rather than mandate no smoking across the board.

I totally understand the point you're making- that tons of crap gets in the air and we all breath it in. And I do partially buy into the argument and have a hard time defending the ban, when just yesterday, I was stuck walking behind someone wearing absolutely horrid cologne. But for nearly all of your other examples, they serve some other purpose (aside from the cologne!), and in the case of pesticides and exhaust fumes, have tons of regulations already imposed. Smoking, on the other hand, serves zero purpose for anyone- the smoker or the second-hander. And I argue that pleasure doesn't count as a purpose for smoking, because it is an addictive behavior and has zero benefits- I don't think anyone who is addicted to cigarrettes would chose to become addicted again. Additionally, the argument for smoking being a right doesn't align with the laws most are in favor of, which prohibits ANY use of other harmful substances (coke, heroin, meth, pot), and already does ban public alcohol consumption. I obviously know that smoking/nicotine doesn't cause anywhere close to the alteration in personality/behavior that all of the other drugs cause- but from a whole-health standpoint, it is worse, mostly because it's legal.

I do have a hard time with the infringement on personal liberties, but because I detest smoking so much, I just have a hard time arguing to protect something that is so much more harmful than nearly all other drugs. I would be perfectly happy making cigarettes illegal. But don't touch my alcohol or caffeine, hehe

My Race Log

Champion

11641

Fairport, NY

Subject: RE: Smoke-Free Campus

cornchexs - 2011-06-13 12:03 PM

So Fresh So Clean - 2011-06-13 10:43 AM Overkill. At the local hospital (and I think all hospitals in my province) there is a campus wide smoking ban. In addition to adverse health effects, smoking could ignite and explode oxygen tanks! AND YET PEOPLE ARE CHAIN SMOKING RIGHT OUTSIDE THE MAIN ENTRANCE!! A campus wide smoking ban is just too hard to enforce, even with the $300 fine that goes with it. Set the rules so that you don't have to work too hard to enforce them, or they won't be enforced at all.

I am not a smoker and don't have much of an issue with restricting public areas where people can smoke but this statement seems a bit far-fetched to me. I would think that it would take a much stronger heat source than a cigarette to ignite an oxygen tank.

Not far-fetched. It's not the cigarette but the open flame used to light the cigarette that's the ignition source for the oxygen. Happened to some good friends of mine back in the mid-80's. They all lived but a couple of them were pretty severely burned.

My Race Log

Champion

7347

SRQ, FL

Subject: RE: Smoke-Free Campus

Afletcher - 2011-06-15 12:53 PM

TriRSquared - 2011-06-13 11:24 AM

While I agree with smoking bans in enclosed places (like restaurants, bars, sporting events etc..) I think these "no smoking in public" bans are going a bit too far.

Now I HATE the smell of smokers. But really, how hard is it to move a couple of feet to get out of the way of the smoke?

It's really hard when, for instance, you're sitting with 300,000 other people at the Indy 500 (or other outdoor event)

I said "sporting event" in my original post

My Race Log

Smoke-Free Campus (Page 3)

REGISTER TODAY