Fla. university bans all tobacco use (recreational areas, dorms, and even outdoors and in cars.)

[The Straight Story]

Fla. university bans all tobacco use

MIAMI, Jan. 7 (UPI) -- A Florida university says it has instituted a campus-wide ban on smoking, including recreational areas, dorms, and even outdoors and in cars.

Florida International University is the second school in the state to announce a tobacco ban after the University of Florida, which went smoke-free in July, The Miami Herald reported Friday.

Everyone who drives into or sets foot on campus, whether faculty, staff, students or visitors, must comply, the university said.

For the first six months of the initiative, violators will be reminded of the regulation and asked to dispose of their cigarette or tobacco product.

Violations after six months will bring a formal conduct review to determine a punishment, university officials said.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/01/07/Fla-university-bans-all-tobacco-use/UPI-54951294431200/#ixzz1APIFtbnY

But hey, they still allow people to drive cars (said it many times now - I will go out in my garage and chain smoke for 2 hours, and those for these bans can go out to their garage and let their cars run for 2 hours. Let me know which is worse for people... if the idea is for health, then at least be consistent)

[Goblinmonger]

1. Already the case on public schools now.

Can't smoke on school grounds. Why should universities be any different?

[ZombieHorde]

2. Most people who attend public schools are not legally allowed to smoke,

while most people who attend universities are legally allowed to smoke. That is one difference.

[Goblinmonger]

8. Teachers can't smoke on school grounds

Even in their cars. Neither can visitors. Including visitors to non-school functions on non-school days.

[jallo]

43. also, many college kids LIVE on campus

which isn't the case in high schools (except private boarding schools of course)

In my state, kids can carry guns on college campuses. It would be a little silly to restrict smoking outdoors.

[Mariana]

60. I don't think the fact that it would be silly would stop them.

There's hardly any shortage of silly rules and laws.

[jallo]

95. (cop with gun drawn to college student openly carrying) DROP IT DROP IT!

College kid drops the gun.

Cop: No, not the GUN!!!! Drop the CIGARETTE. This is a smoke free campus!

[Mariana]

103. LOL, I can almost see that. Not quite, but almost. nt.

[The Straight Story]

7. Oh, I dunno, something about freedom, your body, your choice (ok, that only applies to one thing)

Second hand smoke a problem? How about second hand emissions from cars? Ooooh that's right, the people against smoking drive.

How about all that energy used by a campus that they are getting from coal/etc? Right. Ignore the impact of that on others.

Let's all ride that wave of being self righteous and telling others how bad their smoking is - all the while we are driving our SUV's, etc, to work, using textbooks that come from wood from rainforests (instead of online texts), etc and so on.

I don't get all these preachy types attacking one thing (ok, I do, because it is easy and they really don't want to be consistent) while doing something worse.

WHY should universities be different? How about because they are supposed to actually think about things and not be knee jerk reactionaries?

[Goblinmonger]

11. My son has asthma.

If he is around smoke, he will be in bad shape for a couple of days. He is not an isolated case. Public schools are public property. They aren't saying you can't smoke in your home.

Do you rail against the rules that people legally able to smoke cannot do so on public school property?

[The Straight Story]

16. Did you miss this part?

"outdoors and in cars"

And yes, people ARE saying you cannot smoke in your own home (if it is in an Apartment and such) because others may smell it. They even have bans now on sidewalks.

[Goblinmonger]

17. "outdoors and in cars" ON PUBLICLY OWNED PROPERTY.

You can't smoke in most state-owned buildings (at least that is the case in Wisconsin) or other government properties. This is just a campus ban. Much like has been in place for high schools and down.

[The Straight Story]

20. Ok, well please at least be consistent. If the problem is 'second hand smoke'

Then are you willing to ban cars from these schools?

As I have said time and again - I will go out in my garage and chain smoke for 2 hours, and you and others can then go into the same garage and sit there while your car is running.

If you are all about doing the right thing and removing pollution then do the right thing and park your car and don't use it ever again.

[Goblinmonger]

24. There are a lot of problems with your analogy.

The second hand smoke argument is not the same pollution argument as car exhaust. Certainly in large cities a good deal of car exhaust will affect the breathing of asthmatics. In most situations, the pollution from cars is a problem on different levels of greenhouse gas, etc. Second hand smoke has a different pollutant effect on asthmatics.

Additionally, concentrated car exhaust is immediately lethal in enclosed spaces, which you know, so your analogy fails at that point, too. Why not just say you are going to smoke in your garage and I go in my garage with Zyklon B and see which one is worse?

You are comparing apples to oranges on levels of texture and color.

[Hannah Bell]

46. bullshit. the smoke from cars has most of the same pollutants tobacco does.

if it's sooooo dangerous to have someone smoking outside or in their car then it's even more dangerous to have cars driving around on campus.

ridiculous.

[KossackRealityCheck]

84. Doesn't go far enough. Smokers should be locked up in asylums

After all, they are suffering from an addiction that is worse than cocaine or heroin addiction.

That is not the case of drivers. Drivers are not addicted to driving. They find it convenient or necessary to drive given the infrastructure. So your analogy is kind of insane.

Cigarette smokers should face involuntary commitment to an asylum until the drug is out of their system, and their neurotransmitters adjust to not being tweaked by nicotine. Then they would be able to make a rational decision about whether to continue smoking.

Of course, if they start again, they could be locked up again.

I've seen PSAs of smokers whose voice boxes have been cut out, who speak through an electronic device, and they're still smoking.

Obviously anyone who smokes tobacco is mentally deranged, and needs to be treated as such. Same is not true of drivers.

[Jamastiene]

113. You were not being sarcastic, were you?

Something tells me you really believe that. :wow:

[demwing]

41. Cars might be a necessity. Cigarettes never will be.

I'd make the damn things illegal if I could.

[Hannah Bell]

47. cars aren't a necessity on campus. i went to college & never used a car.

if cigarettes are such a public health hazard that people can't even smoke outside or inside their own cars, then cars driving around on campus are *more* of a health hazard & should be banned as well.

[demwing]

83. Cars MIGHT be a necessity.

Cigarettes never will be.

[The Straight Story]

104. So you would be fine with banning most abortions as well?

because most are not necessary, they are desired. People have a choice to have, or not have, sex. Many would argue that an abortion stops a beating heart, and that a fetus (especially after X weeks) feels pain.

Cars MIGHT be a necessity, and SOME abortions might be too - but what about those that are not?

For me it comes down to whether or not folks really, truly, believe what they say "your body, your choice". If you believe it for one thing, why not another? Either you are for the principle of it, or you are not.

[LTR]

123. Speak for yourself!

Smoking IS a necessity!

:smoke:

[LAGC]

108. I absolutely detest second hand smoke.

ESPECIALLY if it's seeping in through a neighbor's apartment next door, polluting my living area.

I see nothing wrong with apartment complexes declaring themselves smoke-free, and I specifically inquire about such when looking for a new place. If smokers have a problem with it, they can patronize properties that allow smoking or buy their own house and smoke in it all they want. But not on communal property, where people can't get away from it.

Banning all smoking outdoors is going a bit far, but I have no problem with ordinances saying "no smoking within 25 feet of an entrance."

[Jamastiene]

114. That sounds much more reasonable. n/t

[Dappleganger]

37. Our kids have the same asthma problems.

As do I. We can't just turn it off like a switch.

[Goblinmonger]

39. I wish we could.

He is a very healthy, otherwise, kid. Varsity wrestler. His asthma doesn't kick in a lot, but when it does, it just kills him. Hard to see him like that. He was in the national wrestling final last year when in the middle of a flare up. Lost the match because of his breathing.

People who don't see what this does to people have no idea.

[Dappleganger]

89. oh no, what bad luck!

It has definitely kept ours from pushing forward with sports, but that's ok.

People don't understand it's like pushing you underwater in a pool then holding you there. They don't get it.

[Kalyke]

125. And I have allergies which makes it hard to breathe.

Guess what aggravates them?

Not smoke, but mold and dust.

Can I outlaw dust now?

[Very_Boring_Name]

61. It's one thing to smoke in the privacy of your home

But I shouldn't have to inhale that crap when I walk past you. All the smokers on my campus love to sit right outside the front doors of the library, I can tell you its an absolute treat to walk through a cloud of cancerous fumes when I want to go study. Your right to smoke ends at my right not to have to breath the fumes.

[Jamastiene]

112. True. n/t

[Amerigo Vespucci]

21. I was out on my 2-mile "stress walk" the other day...

...which takes me past the front gates of a public school, and there was a sign on the gate that said "This is a smoke-free school," basically saying no smoking once you go through the gates. First time I'd seen that. I remember the "Teachers' Lounges" back in my school days. Walking in one of those was like walking through the fog in Jack the Ripper's London.

:rofl:

[WinkyDink]

82. Because of the AGE GROUPS involved.

[ZombieHorde]

3. The War on Drugs is so successful, why not expand it? nt

[awoke_in_2003]

49. +1000

this is pure bullshit.

[FLPanhandle]

4. Driving is kind of required in the US

Smoking isn't.

[IntravenousDemilo]

22. They have transit in Florida, I hear. n/m

[immoderate]

40. They do?

:rofl:

--imm

[Hannah Bell]

69. yes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=134830&mesg_id=135946

[demwing]

42. We do?

really?

[Hannah Bell]

70. yes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=134830&mesg_id=135946

[demwing]

79. Really?

All three of those service are inter or intra campus. The Panther Safety Tram is a safety measure, not a transportation solution.

None provide a real alternative to getting to and from school from work or home, nor address the many other reasons cars or trucks might need to get in and out of the school.

[Hannah Bell]

97. you must have missed the miami-dade transit.

[FLPanhandle]

54. You heard wrong

But thanks for the laugh.

[Hannah Bell]

66. They do at the university in question, & in Miami-Dade, so I guess *you* heard wrong.

FIU’s campuses are in great locations and easy to reach.

Our Modesto A. Maidique Campus (MMC) is just 10 miles from downtown Miami in western Miami-Dade County. You can get to us by car, or by Miami-Dade County Transit.

Campus shuttles

The Golden Panther Express Shuttle runs between the Modesto Maidique and Biscayne Bay campuses. At just $2 each way, it’s a great alternative to driving.

The free CATS shuttle travels from the Modesto Maidique Campus to the Engineering and Computer Sciences Building located on 107th Avenue and Flagler Street.

To ensure that you feel safe on campus, we’ve partnered with the Student Government Association to create the Panther Safety Aide Program. The Panther Safety Tram provides escorts around campus at the MMC and BBC campuses.

http://www.fiu.edu/life-at-fiu/transportation-parking/index.html


Sounds like they've got a *lot* of alternatives to private cars.

But of course it's hard to demonize driving, since most people do it; even though it's a thousand-fold more polluting & more of a health hazard than second-hand smoke.

[immoderate]

78. If you are in Florida, you can't get around without a car.

Maybe if you live along the routes. Then you can go where they will take you.

--imm

[Hannah Bell]

98. you said there was no transit. there is.

[immoderate]

101. Really? Show me where I said that.

There are some buses and some trains. They don't go to most places. You have to drive to the train. Some retirement communities ferry their people to the supermarket.

If I have to get somewhere in Miami, it's $1 bus to the train station, then $5 on the Tri-rail, then $1.25 on the Metrorail. Time is about like being stuck in traffic on I-95, except you can get to anywhere.

South Florida is nothing like New York, Chicago, or Paris which have real transportation systems. I lived in Manhattan for 20 years, and never missed having a car. Here I would starve.

--imm

[Jamastiene]

111. Lol, my little half horse town has "transit"

but it is one bus (not as in Greyhound size, but as in slightly larger than a minivan size). We have way more people than we do "transit" to carry everybody. It has a few stops, and the way this town is spread out, unless you are going downtown or a few other places really close to there, good luck. The college is miles away from where our transit goes on any given day. You practically NEED a car to get around where I live because it's so spread out. If you live right inside the city, you can walk a lot and get to some places, but you better plan to walk a few hours for the rest. It's not all so conveniently located like in a city.

I would say if the people who live down there are saying their transit system isn't all its cracked up to be on the surface (even my town's little van has a fancy name with "transit" in it), maybe it wouldn't hurt to listen.

[quaker bill]

76. in some places

but Gov. Scott will surely put an end to that.

[Hannah Bell]

65. it's not required on college campuses except for delivery vehicles.

why are private cars allowed on campuses?

[brewens]

5. I've warned slob smokers not to throw their butts on the ground

for years. I would guess that part of their justification for the ban would be cleanup costs. Cities, businesses and schools have to pay someone to pick those up. Idiots that throw their cigarettes all over the place, will be the ones bitching the loudest, when their town bans smoking in all public areas.
I smoke cigars and never throw them on the ground.

[awoke_in_2003]

50. I "field dress" my butts...

do a little pinch behind the cherry, and rotate between the fingers. Cherry drops out, and is easily broken up. The butt goes in the pocket until I find a trash can. Butts on the ground are unsightly.

[Jamastiene]

115. Same here.

I never throw cigarette butts on the ground. It's littering, which I detest.

[Shagbark Hickory]

6. So which one is it? A ban on tobacco or a ban on smoking?

[ScarletFyre]

9. I don't see how they could ban

Nasal snuff or snus. No second-hand harm there, and no mess for anyone to clean up either.

[Shagbark Hickory]

90. The reason I ask is because it would be nice if you could still smoke marijuana and

rolled up shavings from the pencil sharpener.

[lonestarnot]

10. A person's car is private property. They can't do that can they?

[Goblinmonger]

12. The car is on government property.

I teach at a high school. Can't smoke on school grounds even in my car (not that I do). If a kid parks their car on school property and the drug dog hits on it, they can search it.

[lonestarnot]

19. I believe there could be some kind of challenge that could be made re a person's right in their own

vehicle, whether or not it is on school/government property or not.

[petronius]

30. There was some discussion a while back about people having firearms in their cars

on private property, and whether the property owner could ban such possession. Can't remember how it turned out, but it seems to be analogous.

Personally, I'm in favor of smoking bans inside and near doors, but there's plenty of room outdoors for everyone to find fresh air (or not, as they prefer)...

[awoke_in_2003]

51. Bingo...

when smoking in public areas, I always check which way the wind is blowing and (far) move away from doors. Some peoples' habits offend me, so I don't want to offend people with mine.

[Ikonoklast]

96. Park your vehicle in your neighbor's driveway, and sit in it. See what happens.

You 'right to privacy' ends when you are on property other than your own.

Same reasoning used by the SC in search-and-seizure rulings along the public right-of-way; you only have limitied rights in a personal vehicle while out in the public domain.


You can, however, sit in your own driveway, in your car, and smoke all you want and no one would bother you.

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. The drug dogs look for cars where cigarettes are smoked?

Good grief.

[Goblinmonger]

36. Not what I was saying.

When they do the drug sweep, they check the cars in the lot. A hit for drugs means they can search the car (the smart druggies keep their drugs in their car and park off school property).

My point was just that "private property" (i.e. a car) is not sacred when on school property.

[proud2BlibKansan]

48. So do the drug dogs hit on tobacco or not?

You certainly implied that they did.

[Goblinmonger]

99. I understand I was unclear

I tried to clarify. "Not what I was saying." My point with the drug dogs is that private cars on school property are not sacred places. If a drug dog thinks there are drugs in a car on school property, the car can be searched.

[Mariana]

63. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

I'm sure it's coming, if it's not being done already.

[Hannah Bell]

68. I believe smoking is illegal for those under 18. It is in my state at least.

[lonestarnot]

88. So all university students are age 18?

:crazy:

[Maru Kitteh]

13. good.

[dixiegrrrrl]

14. E-cigs?

Are they banning tobacco use or are they banning 'smoking"?
What about snuff?
What about patches?
Nicorette?

And what does the tobacco lobby say about this?
tobacco is legal to sell and use in this country.

Obligatory disclaimer: I am tobacco/nicotine free since 1998.

[jallo]

45. Where I live they are going to ban e-cigs

in the same areas they ban smoking. They CLAIMED the smoking ban was for second hand smoke. Ecigs don't have that problem. They are still banning them. THere's a message there. They are a bunch of fucking liars.

[awoke_in_2003]

52. banning e-cigs?...

wow. A co-worker uses one, and you can't tell anything is going on except for the vapor. I work with sensitive non-smokers, and none of them have complained about the e-cig yet.

[Mariana]

64. You ever see an anti-smoking loon who's been fooled

by someone "smoking" an e-cig? I've seen it and it was unbelievable. The one I saw got all righteous and puffed up, ready to confront a woman who was enjoying her e-cig in the lobby of the building my kid's orthodontist's office is in. He marched on over there to her and said loudly to make sure everyone would hear, "CAN'T YOU READ THE SIGNs? SMOKING'S NOT ALLOWED IN HERE!"

She explained what she was actualy doing and what do you think he did? Reasonable, normal people would say something like, "Oh, sorry, carry on then." Not this jackass. He stalked away back to the guy he came in with, saying, "Well, those should be illegal, too!" And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he called the city to complain about e-cigs and demand that they be banned in public places.

[Hannah Bell]

71. as is obvious from many of the comments at DU, there's a lot of moral panic/scapegoating involved.

[awoke_in_2003]

102. nothing is more fervent...

than a recent convert.

[jallo]

92. exactly

Yet, in King County area (Seattle) they are banning them because they could somehow encourage people TO smoke. I shit you not. They claimed it was about 2nd hand smoke back before e-cigs. That's why they said they were banning cigs, but now they are showing their hand. I fucking HATE HATE HATE cigarette smoke, btw. But that's not what this is about, or has ever been about for the moral superiors.

[Mariana]

107. I figure that the idea of banning e-cigs is about

preventing the anti-smoking loons from looking like asses in public.

You know what'll happen if one of the loons gets fooled by an e-cig - they'll go off on the poor sod "smoking" it. When they find out it's not really a cigarette, they'll realize how stupid they just made themselves look. I've seen it happen once. The jackass just got pissed off worse when he found out the person he'd yelled at wasn't actually smoking.

[walldude]

15. Guess it's too much to have a smoking area...

you know outside somewhere out of the way where people who don't want to smell it don't have to. That would be... rude.

[Jamastiene]

116. We have smoking "tents" in some areas here in NC.

They work out pretty well, except they get way too hot in spring and summer. Still, it's good we have them. It is a decent compromise.

[madinmaryland]

18. That's good!

:thumbsup:

[Rage for Order]

23. I think they should also ban junk food and non-diet soda

In the interest of a healthier student body, of course. Think of the children.

[Goblinmonger]

25. The ban of smoking is not about the smoker

but those that are then forced to be around the smoke. Wisconsin recently went smoke free in work places to protect those that work there, not the smokers.

Nice try, though.

[lynne]

26. Which is exactly why all beer and alcohol should be banned -

- to protect those who may come in contact with the drinker. That's where all this is headed, you know.

[Goblinmonger]

27. That makes no sense

False analogy.

There are drunk driving and disorderly conduct laws in place already. Barring those instances, there is no impact on me to someone drinking beer and alcohol. Even if they were to spill it on me, it would only be a minor annoyance.

[PBS Poll-435]

55. What about drunk walking? They might bump into you!

Or even impaired walking. Your shoulder might strike their shoulder or vise versa. That would be a grievous sin.

[Hannah Bell]

75. There's no impact to you if you avoid the smoking area either.

or if you avoid getting in the private cars of smokers.

a lot of people don't mind fascist laws as long as they hurt groups they personally dislike.

[demwing]

80. Yes, because smoke knows its place

and stays in the designated smoking area like it should.

[Hannah Bell]

126. yes, smoke envelops the entire campus, there's no escape.

one smoker pollutes the world!

[Jamastiene]

117. Then, it will be no talking, chewing gum, or running.

I'm not completely sure on why there would be a need to ban running, but all of my schools sure had a no running rule.

[Rage for Order]

28. If that is indeed the concern, why not set up smoking areas?

Certainly the campus is large enough that they could find a couple of patches of secluded asphalt where people could smoke without being anywhere near people who don't want to be around smoke? They could put the smoking areas at the ends of parking lots farthest away from buildings, or some other such area. Or they could allow people to smoke in their cars with the windows rolled up. Certainly non-smokers wouldn't accidentally get in the car with someone who was smoking?

[Goblinmonger]

29. On something that large, it would probably make sense.

Not sure why they went with a complete ban like they do for high schools and below.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

31. I can SMELL smokers, even when they are not smoking.

Furthermore, if I am around a smoker, when they are smoking, I WILL BE SICK WITH A SINUS INFECTION/Bronchitis IN 48 HOURS. Guaranteed. No doubt.

I have had to terminate friendships with smokers and people with cats because they make me sick.

I don't get sick and have to go to the doctor within 48 hours when I am driving, even when driving in Houston or Dallas in heavy traffic. And I have allergic asthma and have NEVER smoked,

False analogy comparison of car emissions with second hand smoke.

[walldude]

33. Then you can stay out of the smoking area.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

35. Depends on the prevailing winds.

And how far away they are from buildings.

[Rage for Order]

87. Have you advocated banning cats, too?

People who smell like perfume or cologne really bother me, just like people who smell like smoke bother you. Should cologne/perfume be banned from all public areas as well? And don't even get me started on the strong, bleachy smell of some cleaning products.

[tpsbmam]

110. +1 nt

[Jamastiene]

119. Some scented shampoos and scented deodorants and perfumes are triggers for

my migraines. Never fails. I don't have a lobby group who'd fight for my rights to have scented stuff banned from everywhere I ever go though. :eyes:

[Mariana]

67. They had probably already done that and still got complaints.

The place I used to work at was on a large campus-like area, and they did set up smoking areas in spots that NO ONE needed to go anywhere near to get anywhere. They still got complaints.

[Jamastiene]

118. That would make way too much sense.

Plus, the anti-smoker types would be forced to buy binoculars so they could cuss at smokers from afar. They would claim discrimination for being forced to buy binoculars to fuss and cuss at smokers then.

[walldude]

32. Bullshit, it's about control.

Or are you saying that on the entire campus there is not a single spot outside that is out of the way where people can smoke and others don't need to smell it?

[ohheckyeah]

56. Exactly. n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

53. smoke only travels so far...

I work at a rather large building (1/4 mile equals one lap around it). I know, no where near as large as most campuses. We have two designated smoking areas. No customer has ever complained about smelling smoke (of course, we are blocked from vision, which hampers the hypochondriac person who instantly coughs the first time they see someone smoking within 3 miles of them). Yes, there are plenty of those types of folks. I have seen people cough the second they see me smoking (not at work) when I had the wind in my face (and directly away from them).

[Mariana]

72. Those types, the ones who "get sick" when they SEE

someone smoking, are the ones who are going to get e-cigs banned everywhere. I've seen one person get fooled by an e-cig, and rather than being relieved and happy that the woman wasn't actually smoking around him, he got pissed off even worse.

[Jamastiene]

121. Yup,

and even if they set up smoking areas a thousand yards away from any area the anti-smokers would be, they'd just buy binoculars so they could keep complaining about seeing the smoke in the distance. Anything to keep a full on war against smokers going. Some of the ones who are really obsessed about it are downright scary. :scared:

[Jamastiene]

124. If they did make a 3 miles from any nonsmoker law,

some anti-smoking types would just buy binoculars and keep the war on smokers going. I think some just enjoy complaining about smokers. See below. It's not just "second hand smoke." Some want e-cigarettes banned too.

[Hannah Bell]

73. of course it's about "the smoker".

[Cid_B]

77. Except it isn't...

... hence the ban on dip and e-cigs.

What is comes down to is that tobacco, in any form or appearance, makes people feel "icky" and they want it gone. The rationalization is that down the line the poor duped idiot consuming that product will thank the gloriously enlightened soul who took the naughty dangerous things away. They feel like parents taking away the bleach from under the sink in a day care center...

[Dappleganger]

38. Yes, but when you eat that crap...

my lungs don't shut down in protest. Smoking does that to asthmatics.

[MadHound]

44. In your own car?

I think some enterprising young student could make a great case for a lawsuit, and have the rest of their tuition paid for.

[TheMadMonk]

57. Several local hospitals tried this stunt here in Australia. It blew up...

...in their faces. Gazetted roads running through hospital property come under a different authority. They soon figured a designated smoking area was better than staff smoking in loading docks full of oxygen cylinders, and puffing patients standing in the middle of the roads blocking ambulance access.

Several coastal councils are learning to their chagrin that their authority stops at the high tide line, and that the waterways authorities couldn't give a shit about policing cigarette butts in the water that will very soon wash up on the beach.

Even though I am in the middle of my nth attempt to give them away, I still find this 'Borglike attitude of "WE WILL MAKE YOU COMPLY" to be extremely offensive. Because we are so reviled, most smokers will give you uncommon courtesy if you politely request that they "move a little". Because they are so reviled, if you get in their face and make a rude stink, some WILL deliberately give you a faceful of smoke.

Oh and for the record, "Would you mind taking that filthy stinking thing elsewhere?" is NOT polite, it's judgemental.

[rainbow4321]

58. Same thing at the hospital I worked at

It was a county hospital that caved under local media scrutiny after some local private hospitals made their campuses smoke free.
Before the ban, those of us who smoked would go out behind the building, hidden from public view.

Then the ban was enacted. So for a while we would go off to stand at the bus stop in front of the hospital..UNTIL one of our hospital police officers confirmed to someone that, yes, the cul de sac area in front of our building was a CITY street, NOT owned by the hospital.

So the once-hidden-away smoking folks started standing right out in public, for all to see and there is not a damn thing the hospital admins can do about it. I think they forgot about the city streets that wind around certain hospital buildings.

They never came out and said NO smoking in your car, but they "strongly discouraged it". They threatened that they would have our campus police driving around looking for smokers. Really?? The police unit couldn't stop the thefts of catalytic converters from workers' CARS happening in broad daylight yet they were gonna go all out for a smoker witch hunt?

Funny thing is, they threaten to fine/ticket patients if they were seen smoking on hospital campus. That made us laugh since all the patients were low income..yet they were going to fine them?
We would see all the smoking patients light up right in front of the building entrance while us workers (threatened with more than just a fine) would go out to the cul de sac area.

[Hannah Bell]

74. I was recently at a hospital that banned it on their campus. Folks would go immediately off

the hospital campus -- & since there was no place to dispose the butts out there, there was litter.

Simply placing a garbage can with butt section would have solved the problem, but that would be -- i'm not sure what.

The same people that tell you people will smoke pot no matter what you do seem to think that forbidding the use of a LEGAL PRODUCT in all public spaces & some private ones will stop people from using it.

Moral panic & idiots.

But the more they demonize it, the more they can jack up taxes on it.

Tobacco taxes fund increasing percentages of state & federal expenditures.

[varkam]

59. As soon as scientists can figure out...

...how smoking a pack of cigarettes can get me from home to work to school and back, I'll give up driving for good. :D

[Jamastiene]

120. I'm sure if you are serious about that,

anti-smokers can line up at your front door and nag you so much that you'll run to get away from them. Hey, you can smoke and jog at the same time that way. The more they nag, the quicker you'll run. So, you'll be sure to get there on time just to get away from their incessant nagging. There's health benefits to running from them. Bonus!

:evilgrin:

[Lucian]

62. Wait...students are paying a shitload of money to go there...

and they're banning smoking? I can understand not smoking in buildings or within 50 feet of an entrance, but to ban it altogether is asinine.

[WinkyDink]

81. A car is still private property. How can this stand, legally? (A cigarette is a legal item, unlike

pot, e.g.)

[SidDithers]

85. Good...nt

Sid

[SOS]

86. The 1970s were a lot more fun

My college dorm had beer kegs in the lounge, thick pot smoke in the hallways and nobody cared if you smoked tobacco or not.
When did college become a monastery?

[WinkyDink]

91. No, no; not a monastery! Far from that! Rather, In loco helicopteri parentis!

[Jamastiene]

122. A monastery might be akin to a party palace compared

to most public places nowadays. And to think, we once were a free country. Can't say that any more. Between cigarette smoke and fascism, I'd rather smell the smoke.

[MattBaggins]

93. Also strange that it bans ALL tobacco

People can't even chew?

[Mariana]

105. It's not strange at all that it bans all tobacco

unless you actually believe the lie that the ban is about secondhand smoke. Of course it isn't about that.

[RegieRocker]

94. Fascism at work. Doen't it make you feel all warm inside?

[Pancho Sanza]

100. Have they banned fucking too?

:eyes: :grr:

[Imagevision]

106. so what?! next...!

[Jamastiene]

109. I see how they have the right to ban it in all of those instances

on their property except in cars. When you park your car somewhere, it does not become the property of whoever owns that parking lot. It's your car dammit. You should have a right to smoke in your own car.