Colleges Move To Ban Smoking On Campus

Colleges across the country are attempting to snuff out smokers by forbidding the habit on school grounds.

According to Time, 365 campuses had instituted some form of smoking ban as of December -- and more are following suit.

The University of Maine will institute a smoke-free policy early next year; the University of Kentucky eliminated smoking last November. A committee at Vassar has advised the school to reduce the number of areas in which to smoke on campus.

But cigarette restrictions at some schools aren't going as well as planned. Ohio State University three years ago passed a smoking policy that prohibits lighting up within 25 feet of a school building, but many students attest that it is weakly enforced. Time confirms that the restrictions and bans are difficult to carry through:

One big problem with a total ban is enforcing it. Take the University of Iowa. In July 2008, the school went smoke-free in accordance with the Iowa Smokefree Air Act, violations of which can result in a $50 fine. But so far, the university has ticketed only about 25 offenders. "Our campus is about 1,800 acres, so to think that we could keep track of who is smoking on campus at any given time isn't really feasible," says Joni Troester, director of the university's campus wellness program.

And not surprisingly, students on many of these campuses are speaking out for their civil liberties.

The Ohio State Lantern called a proposed ban a "petty crusade against bad habits"; a columnist for Vassar's paper compared banning smoking to banning meat.

Has your campus considered a smoking ban? How have students reacted?

WATCH: Ohio State University President Gordon Gee talks to The Lantern about the school's smoking policy.

Comments

[Majax]

01:59 PM on 04/26/2010

BAN EVERYTHING!!!

[PatricktPDX]

01:24 PM on 04/22/2010

Slaxx...what about your lungs the smell you smell on yourself, your burning eyes?

[PatricktPDX]

10:48 AM on 04/22/2010

Smokers have a general attitude that sucks, flicking their cigerette butts on the sidewalks and planters, rubbing out their butts on trashcans and building facades, littering our lungs with obnoxious smoke...

[PatricktPDX]

10:45 AM on 04/22/2010

Rickrude, let's ban the use of cell phones in public along with banning smoking in public as well and save the earth from litter, our lungs from smoke and smell and our ears and psyche from arrogant, loud cell phone users!

[PatricktPDX]

10:41 AM on 04/22/2010

First of all if you ate smart enough to go to college you are should be intelligent enough to know about smoking....if you cry about your right to smoke as an individual you need to "graduate" from your "me" society thinking to a "we" society thinking on campus...

[slaxx]

03:10 PM on 04/22/2010

people smoke because they are ADDICTED and get pleasure out of it. some people also use it as a crutch. it's psychological. it has nothing to do with smarts or what you know; most, if not all, people start smoking in their teen years before they get to college - you know, those years where you think you're indestructable, are rebellious and want to experiment, where you think you won't get addicted or that you'll quit, or you're just not thinking.

i think genetics may also play a part in picking up smoking, just like a genetic predisposition to addiction and substance abuse in general. the best answer is to keep people from starting smoking to begin with.

and please, save me this holier-than-thou attitude. sure, i smoke, but i am a good person who contributes to society just like the rest. i do not lie, cheat, or steal, and i do my best to make life better for everyone. give me a break.

[RickshawJohnson]

11:08 AM on 05/18/2010

Why don't you apply the same principal to your own dictatorly thinking? Not everyone has the same preferences or makes the same choices as you, nor should they be forced to because of your will.

[PatricktPDX]

10:37 AM on 04/22/2010

Smoking is the one of the dirtiest habits I know..,,it smells horrible, ruins the air qualitity for those of us around smokers...tastes awful if you kiss a smoker, is a major cause of litter in urban areas, because people who smoke don't care about their health they don't care about others health around them.....i'm in the restaurant business and if you go out and your food is too salty, it mist likely the kitchen staff smokes, it ruins taste buds. There is a cooking school here in Portland where I live and during their breaks and it is usually 15 to 25 students smoking away, ruining their taste buds, smelling up tge area, littering....

[realitytrumpsbull]

06:59 AM on 04/22/2010

Is it just me, or is college anymore just an overpriced joke, with too much politics and too many people basically trying to tell you how to live your life, and, if you really wanted to learn something, couldn't you do better on your own, pretty much? Besides, there's online courses, learning is there for everybody, overpriced institutions that are increasingly turning to the government for funding because they can't afford to stay open otherwise are basically just a waste of time so you can get a piece of paper to take with you to the unemployment office that proved you went to school for four years so you could flip burgers.

[ilovemyprez]

08:04 PM on 04/21/2010

Smoking was socially stigmatized at my college enough to where people would never smoke during the day, and not on campus or in public. The school never even had to enforce a policy. It was always very strange to go from my out of state college where none of my friends smoked, back to Texas where all of my friends were chain smokers. Yuck.

[Triguy85]

09:41 PM on 04/21/2010

This raises a really good point. Rather than enacting and attempting to enforce some sort of ban, the movement against smoking should start with non-smokers who feel strongly that smoking in public is rude and inconsiderate. Bans are always look at as attempts by "The Man" to infringe on peoples' freedoms. Heck, some folks might be more inclined to smoke in public simply to voice their dissent. However, if non-smokers vocally ostracize smokers for indulging in their habit in public, that social pressure might have a greater influence. A small fine isn't necessarily a great incentive to give up a hard to kick habit. However, being constantly reminded that others don't appreciate your presence because of said habit creates a much greater pressure to change.

[slaxx]

10:24 PM on 04/21/2010

meh...i'm a smoker and i always stand away from people when i smoke because its inconsiderate. however, would you advocate vocally ostracizing other groups, such as overweight people, in public to get them to change their ways, or anyone else who does something that you think is bad or annoys or offends you? what about my rights and the fact that i don't want to be bothered by someone's self-righteous, patronizing b.s.?

[Silverwolf72]

07:10 PM on 04/21/2010

Personally I think we should ban alcohol and has way more issues tied to it than smoking

All I know is that I have seen quite a few people live out full lives that were smoking since they were teenagers. My wife's grandmothers lived till 98 quit when she was 95.

I have known 3 people personally that never smoked, ate well and jogged everyday that got cancer before the age of 40.

[asgspifs]

08:02 PM on 04/21/2010

It's not *use* that should be banned and/or criminalized - it's *abuse*.
If you can use something with abusing it, then OK.

Abuse would be defined as: anytime use of something results in a negative impact on another person's fundamental rights (to pursue life, liberty and happiness).

With regard to the smoking issue, I would say that forcing someone to be exposed to smoke constitutes abuse.

Anytime the use of something, whether it's a drug or a gun or a car or whatever, turns into abuse, then it becomes wrong and should be banned, or controlled, or criminalized. I say this because it is a mistake to ban all things that could possibly hurt someone - you can't punish the majority of responsible users to stop the irresponsible abusers.

BTW, pointing out a few outlier data points that are not statistically representative of the bulk of the population is not an argument against banning irresponsible smoking behavior. That's like saying, "I know someone who wasn't wearing a seat belt when they got in a car wreck and they were OK, therefore seat belt laws should not be required."

[Lucy1886]

08:40 AM on 04/22/2010

I know someone who repeatedly drives drunk and hasn't had an accident (yet). And I know someone who refuses to wear a seat belt and he's not dead yet. And I heard about someone who died even though he was wearing a seat belt. And I know someone who used cocaine for twenty years and never got caught. And I know someone who systematically tries to cross train tracks ahead of oncoming trains--and you know what?.....he hasn't been hit by a train yet !! ! And I know someone who prayed everyday to not be eaten by a tiger, and she was NEVER eaten by a tiger.

I have known...........I have known...........MEANS ALMOST NOTHING! It is the attitude of trying to create general conclusions about health based on whom YOU KNOW that is the same kind of reasoning that leads to all kinds of other, sometimes dangerous, stereotypes. ("I knew a Muslim Arab guy one ---err, or maybe he was a Hindu from India or whatever -- and he once said.....and I saw this black lady on Jerry Spring and do you know what SHE said and my friend had a Jewish landlord and..........") You kind of gave yourself away when you wrote: "All I know is....." That shouldn't be "all you know".

That's why we have this silly thing called "the scientific method".

(see more below)

That's why we have this silly thing called THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

[Andrew Macdonald]

07:10 PM on 04/21/2010

forcing your views on people, very collegial.

[mamala4]

07:44 AM on 04/22/2010

how about "forcing your health on people who have no desire to be exposed to cancer?"

[zeppelingirl89]

06:55 PM on 04/21/2010

I'm not a smoker, but this is stupid. Second-hand smoke is easily avoided and dissipates into the air fairly quickly
Obesity is a way bigger problem than cigarette smoking.

[asgspifs]

07:34 PM on 04/21/2010

Yeah, just like trash dissipates in rivers and the ocean - look up Great Pacific Garbage Patch. There's one in the Atlantic, too.

Dilution is not the solution to pollution.

And, Yes, I can smell the smoke of smokers, even when outside.

[mamala4]

07:45 AM on 04/22/2010

Ditto.

[slaxx]

03:24 PM on 04/22/2010

what a bad analogy.

[ilovecandy]

06:29 PM on 04/21/2010

Good. SFSU had a ban for smoking for years and even had areas where people could go smoke, but before recently they didn't have a fine, and people still smoked wherever they wanted. I was walking to my next class once (outside) and a line of people were walking toward me and all smoking. It was like this big cloud of cigarette smoke in my way. Even though I squeezed around I still inhaled. I was coughing for the rest of the day and my eyes got swollen and red, the stuff seriously irritates me. But these people were so annoying they didn't even move. So when I had a chance I complained and I know others had been complaining as well via a school newspaper article. Finally our school imposed a $58 fine for smokers. So far, I haven't seen one.

[DeathMetalKing]

05:10 PM on 04/21/2010

Smoking can be discouraged through education. There is no need to restrict a free adult's right to do whatever they want to their own bodies. A campus is a big place; I'm sure anyone who is sensitive to smoke can avoid it relatively fine.

[asgspifs]

07:36 PM on 04/21/2010

It's actually more difficult to avoid than you might think. It doesn't matter how big a campus is, what matters is how many smokers are concentrated 25 feet form the entrance to the building you are trying to get into without inhaling 2nd hand smoke.

[slaxx]

10:28 PM on 04/21/2010

they should simply put benches and/or the ashtrays in designated places so the smokers will congregate there.

[DeathMetalKing]

03:09 PM on 04/22/2010

I don't know about you dude but I inhale a crapload of carcinogenic secondhand smoke from the incense censor in my church every sunday, and I don't see anyone trying to ban that. If you're that afraid of breathing in a little difused smoke for ten seconds every day then you really aren't thinking rationally about the dangers of this stuff.

[KikoJones]

05:07 PM on 04/21/2010

As many have pointed out here, there are plenty of foods, aromas, and habits that are equally harmful as smoking. The bottom line is there is no true health concern at work here, just an elitist, hypocritical disdain for cigarette smoking. That's how all kinds of entities get away with banning the usage of a legal product (cigarettes). No one has smoked 2 packs of Marlboros, gotten behind the wheel of an automobile and then, with their vehicle, proceeded to kill a family of 4 under the influence of nicotine. But the wine and cheese crowd would cry foul if you brought it up.

I live in NYC, where there is a smoking ban in effect in bars, and enclosed (and many open air) public spaces since 2003. As a smoker I don't mind the ban; except for bars. NOTHING healthy is going there. People VOLUNTARILY visit these establishments to poison themselves. (Guilty as charged, here.) They are not offices, classrooms, gyms or places of worship. Yet, this particular smoking ban is as logical as prohibiting water at the beach. Why? Smoking is a low-class vice that offends the noses and sensibilities of a holier than thou bunch who disguise it as a health issue to seem less petty in the process.

[slaxx]

10:30 PM on 04/21/2010

i'm a smoker and i agree with the smoking ban in bars. smoke annoys me as well when i'm not the one smoking and is isn't fair to others who dislike the smell of smoke and burning eyes from smoke. it's not that hard to just go outside.

[Lucy1886]

08:49 AM on 04/22/2010

It is the comment of "equally harmful" that is not factually true. If ten obese people are standing near the doorway of a building, it does not affect my breathing. If ten smokers are smoking near a building, it most definitely irritates my internal organs, sometimes lasting for quite a long time.

A major problem of smoking in bars is that the EMPLOYEES are subjected to massive amounts of smoke. Now someone COULD say that "Well, they could just get a job elsewhere".......but then, while we are at it, we could just do away with all health and safety regulations at workplaces and factories and just say: "Hey, we won't put any health or safety regulations in this coal mine, or factory, or whatever...and if you don't want to work in these conditions, go find a job elsewhere."

How about I decide to burn a barrel full of tar on my property next to your bedroom window? HA -- the libertarians would be the first ones to call for BIG GOVERNMENT to come in and save them and their "property rights" from MY right to enjoy the smell of burning tar.........

[KikoJones]

01:55 PM on 04/22/2010

Lucy, when I wrote "equally harmful" I should've clarified my point and brought up those studies that state diesel motors produce a similar noxious effect as cigarette smoke, for instance.

As for bar employees, it's been my experience that very few of them do not smoke--or abstain from drinking for that matter. So, they are poisoning themselves already. And as I said before NOTHING healthy is going on in a bar. Implementing health safety regulations are one thing, but you cannot completely rule out the inherent health risks in a particular job. Which is the difference btwn working in an office and a coal mine, for example.

As for your 10 obese people vs 10 smokers argument, it is quite disingenuous since the 10 smokers would only affect someone with prolonged and sustained exposure to them--like someone who was stationed by them--not casually passing thru.

[lanebaldwin]

04:45 PM on 04/21/2010

Sort of off the subject, but I often wonder how one reconciles a "small government," "stay out of my life," philosophy with so many regulations regarding such things as smoking, the wearing of seat belts, etc. ... let's not even get into the concept of government control of the womb.

It just puzzles me...

And in reference to another post's comment that the "sin" tax on tobacco only affects the poor, I agree that the lower the income level, the greater the affect. It's the same with any consumption tax, such as the "fair" tax national sales tax idea being floated on the edges lately. Any consumption tax will automatically have a greater negative effect at lower income levels.

Now, a toxin tax... that would be interesting, wouldn't it?