Forbidden Donut

Smoking is gross.

this reminds me of just how many douchebags there are in the world who need to let go and stop trying to control everything. they only thing they are protecting are their own self interests and their obviously warped perception of secondhand smoke

people who smoke are dumb and should stop crying like little pussies when we don't allow them to ruin our air with their filthy habits

I don't agree with controlling it, but personally If I never had to be around second hand smoke that would be a + in my book. I'm the person who doesn't smoke but will end up with lung cancer down the road.

I'm all for letting people smoke outside. If people really want to quit, they can.

As soon as you stop polluting my ears and eyes with your annoying drivel.

/tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

Somebody will be smoking in their dorm and burn a building down, the ban will get reviewed, smoking will be found even more dangerous. Studies will be done and more universities will follow suit until, like the ban on marijuana, it works, and everybody quits.

I don't mind when people try to limit smoking to certain areas like at airports, libraries, restaurants, etc. But trying to stop it all together just sounds silly. Personally, I don't think it's going to be very effective. Btw, I don't smoke cigarettes, so it's just an opinion.

The rule at kutztown already was that you can't smoke within 15 feet of any building, but as of today you can't smoke on campus as a whole.

So boycott them.

They are a business, just like Wal-Mart. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

Now, if it is a federally funded college, then they can suck it.

It's a state college.

Also I remember switching colleges being a HUGE pain in my ass. Couple that with the INSANE budgets colleges work with compared to how much they spend per student, and you're looking at the most ineffectual boycott ever at a very high cost to you.

I suggest protests, petitions, letters to the dean, and getting some fall guys to smoke all over campus anyway. Non-students in the area may be coerced into flagrantly violating the schools ban and laughing in police officer's faces when they try to enforce it.

just round up a bunch of homeless people on the edge of the campus and give them smokes

maybe not in kutztown... but yeah. That's the idea.

So, the funny thing is the protest is a no go. All the smokers were complaining and talking about a protest in this one spot on campus and I saw nobody there. I guess people these days are too occupied to fight for their rights.

bud remembers when you used to be able to smoke in movie theaters

i think that is fucking bullshit. i agree with banning smoking in public buildings and establishments...but outside is a whole other thing. you should be able to smoke without a hassle outside, it's your freedom to do so.as annoying as it might be for those of who dont smoke (including myself) they will have to deal with it. if they are going to ban smoking outside now...they might as well make smoking totally illegal nation wide. fucking anger.

prohibition worked before, and it will work again. For the sake of public health we MUST ban all tobacco products from being bought, sold, or used.

It's not really that simple, though.

The argument is that second-hand smoke kills and therefore people shouldn't be subjected to it unless they want to be. The same idea can be applied to a situation where I was mixing large tubs of chlorine and ammonia in my backyard. I guarantee, if a neighbor understood what I was doing, I would be in a shit load of trouble.

That basically falls under the right to life. No one has the right to infringe upon someone's right to live, thus our laws against murder.

Under those premises, it seems entirely lawful that such a ban (even federally) would exist.



This is hardly like the era of prohibition that you're referring to. This is far more like laws that ban public drunkenness or drunk driving, both of which work well.

Court, you're right....but where will all of this end? If they outlaw smoking outside it is once again, big brother taking away our rights. First they outlaw smoking indoors (understandable), Now it's banning it outside, Next will be smoking in your car because it can affect your passenger(s) or children. I think the only logical thing to do is to ban it all together, nationwide, period. To have the government control where and when we can smoke is ridiculous.

I agree that this could be a slippery slope for the government but only because the government only cites the constitution when they think it helps their point (you can blame anyone that voted for Obama/McCain for helping to promote that, by the way), and I'm all for cutting back on government control over unnecessary things, but I do believe this issue is entirely a constitutional argument and therefore very necessary. Don't get me wrong; I could care less about someone smoking on the street. However, if second-hand smoke does, in fact, kill people, then I think it is our constitutional duty to stop it from happening.

That reminds me. One morning on Talk Radio, Michael Smerconish actually said we should legalize marijuana. I didn't think there'd be anyone on the radio who would support this.

Back on topic. Andrew is right. Making it illegal for people to do what they want has always worked. It has always decreased crime and saved the public tons of money.

imo one of the main problems in this whole issue is that second hand smoke "kills". yes it is detrimental to your health, albeit in obscenely large concentrations for long periods of time. A direct correlation is weak at best because of the numerous controls you can have in your study. Take the empirical evidence of the mean age when smokers are diagnosed with lung cancer. Statistical biases and external factors aside, even the heaviest smokers (2-3 packs/day) tend to be diagnosed many, many years down the road from when they actually started inhaling vast quantities of carcinogens. Sniffing SHS for a few seconds in your day won't kill you, it likely won't affect you at all, unless you have a pre-existing health issue, in which case smoking is already restricted in most public places.



Okotoks, a town a few hours from where I live, has already done this

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/s...84-0ec7374e9fa7

I disagree. Not on the general premise, of which you've made an accurate assessment, but rather on the effective result. If I want a cigarette I'm now confined to my home. That's it. That's your only option. Since this is a college, you can't smoke in the dorms. So basically the college has completely banned (or prohibited) the use of tobacco anywhere on campus. Not in a bar, not in your home, not on the street. That's prohibition IMO and isn't designed to protect anyone so much as it was to inflate the schools numbers of non-smoking students.

If this were a small town, I'd be cool with it. Especially since there's a town hall you could go to to hash it out. But at a college where you have absolutely no say as a student in their policy, this is absolutely analogous to the prohibitions of yesteryear.

Also of note, there's a bit of a difference between cigarette smoke and mustard gas. I hardly think that's an apt comparison. If your outside, smoke dissipates quickly. Aside from the fact that you can really just walk 10 feet away, and presto, no second hand smoke. Pussy.

I'd say even if you were to accept that second hand smoke KILLS people, you're not really helping anybody by banning the practice. People shoot up heroin for fuck's sake...

But yeah, cmon, even when I thought smoking was the grossest habit ever, I'd pass people smoking on the street, think, "gross", smell it for 5 seconds and forget about it less than a minute later.

more to the point, historically speaking, most bans have been implemented for discriminatory reasons.

/just sayin'

The reason this is acceptable on a campus is that there are no private residences. A dorm room provides privacy, but it isn't your residence. You don't rent it, nor do you own it. Instead, you're basically a guest in the college's house. If you were staying at a buddy's place that asked you not to smoke in his guest room, I doubt you'd think that is weird or wrong at all. More than anything though, smoking is banned in dorms not because of second-hand smoke but to prevent property damage, so that is entirely besides the point.

Blanket bans on something like smoking aren't really something that gets implemented at the will of the university administrators. For the most part, the administration doesn't want to mess with new policy because it's really expensive to implement any new policy, much less one that would most certainly be met with tough opposition from students. Since a large portion of any college's income is from alumni donations, it is costly to make students hate you. Millersville has been pushing to ban smoking on campus for some time; the push is primarily organized by the student senate and is supported by dozens of student and faculty signed petitions every year.

Sure, mustard gas is far more potent of a killer than cigarette smoke. From what you're saying, it would be alright if I pumped it out of my backyard so long as it was diluted to the point that a neighbor couldn't smell its almond scent in their backyard? It probably wouldn't kill them, then. Well, at least not right away...

Otherwise, the smoke dissipating quickly thing is a valid argument, and it should be addressed whenever considering a ban like this. However, if second-hand smoke even kills outside, the fact that someone can walk away from it doesn't mean it shouldn't be banned.

Funny how a bunch of smokers are environmentalists....

I could see how people could argue on both ends here.

Case A -

In the end, you should just inject nicotine straight into your veins and stop subecting people to your filthy unhealthy habits.

The act of smoking cures no addiction, it's just the nicotine -- so why not? They don't allow alcohol bottles or cans in the public, so maybe this is the next logical step?

Case B-

Stop being little pussies and if you don't want lung cancer move out of any city, become a hermit, and cook with steam.

Great. So if, like heroine, if someone wants to kill themselves by inhaling second-hand smoke, they can go right ahead. But a heroin addict isn't throwing half-full syringes of heroine in a circle around them whenever they shoot up, so that comparison is hardly apt.

I agree that most bans are for discriminatory reasons, and I think most bans in generally are totally unconstitutional (including heroin, since I was just talking about it). However, that doesn't mean the same must be the case with an outdoor smoking ban.



I totally agree with the latter on a personal level, but that still doesn't affect the constitutionality of the ban. Unless of course I missed the "stop being a pussy" amendment in my readings. I may have been blinded by the sheer awesomeness that would be such an amendment.

Volume is a question here as well. Pool maintenance requires the use of chlorine and muriatic acid, which when combined create mustard gas as well. People don't die from it when they swim in a pool. The two are often stored together in quantities large enough to facilitate a small scale disaster, but even when they end up mixed by accident, even mixing a gallon of each together by accident, as long as you don't just stand there and breath it in until it lulls you to sleep, you're going to be ok.

But in all honesty, we don't know that. We don't know what type of long term effect breathing that in could have, just like we don't really know what kind of long term effect breathing in second-hand smoke outside has. We know second-hand smoke in an enclosed environment can have nearly if not as much of an effect as smoking itself, but we don't know enough about it in an outdoor environment. All we know is that it smells like it dissipates fairly quickly (Although it does linger for awhile. I can easily smell the smoke of someone who is walking twenty feet in front of me). Obviously this type of information would have to be researched more thoroughly before a federal ban, but that is kind of why no one is pushing for a federal ban right now. In the meantime, more localized communities and organizations where individual people can have a far greater impact than on the national scene are making decisions that they think are in everyone's best interest. The need for debate is necessary, but I hardly think it is a clear cut "what the fuck my civil rights" case.

I would just like to note that when it's even remotely warm enough out I drive with my windows down, I hate AC and the such.

I actually get mad when I pull up to a stop and there's a guy in the car in front of me with his cig hanging out the window and all I can smell for the next few minutes is cigarettes.

This was a state wide ban on bars and some other shit, and college universities used it as a stepping stone to banning it on campus.

You're using the constitution in ways that it wasn't intended to be used, Court. Ron Paul would be disappointed in you.

/every issue can't be boiled down to a constitutional battle.

Actually, the constitution doesn't limit the state government at all (except for Amendment XIV). States have free reign. The constitution only limits the Federal Government.

That's not entirely accurate. The constitution exists specifically to limit the types of legislation that state governments can pass to ensure that states are not passing any laws that infringe upon the guaranteed individual rights of every citizen regardless of state affiliation. The 10th amendment (which is what I'm assuming you're referring to) exists specifically to limit the intervention of the federal government in all other circumstances that are not covered by nor conflicting with the constitution. So, if people could make the case that their constitutional rights were being infringed by this ban, then the federal government would be charged with overriding the state (or local) decision.

The argument that group A is having their rights infringed by the ban is as legitimate as the argument that group B WAS having their rights infringed without the ban. Since this limits my personal freedom I say it's better to stray on the side of no ban. But hey. What do I know?

edit:
you're overcomplicating the role that the constitution plays in this case. And overstating it's role in the actual decision to instate the ban.

I see a no-smoking ban on a campus as the same thing as a "quiet" campus or dorm or whatever. Something you're doing that you enjoy (smoking) is making other people uncomfortable (and hell could be giving them lung cancer). I know a couple people who live in "quiet" apartment complexes where on the lease it actually states they can't play rockband (go figure). Graaahhh infringing on my rights! They own the land I presume, you're on their land, they could tell you you can't wear underwear there if they wanted to.

I was referring to the 14th, because the 10th guarantees all rights not specified at the national level to the states. Therefor it isn't limiting the power of state government. The fourteenth limits the power of states by saying, "No state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of low; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protections of the laws."

I'd like to see an argument that shows that people have the right to smoke where they want to. I don't see this being a federal issue at all.

If you're going to argue that the schools have a constitutional right to ban any activity they like, you'll win. But that wasn't the initial argument Court tried to make. His initial argument was that smokers are infringing HIS rights by limiting his right to life. And that argument is no more valid than saying that by banning smoking you're infringing on people's right to the pursuit of happiness/liberty.

Eliminating smoking under the guise of some Clean Air Act is disingenuous at best. No need to increase fuel efficiency in cars by law. No need to make stricter laws for emissions inspection of large class transport vehicles. No need to have stricter farming laws to prevent emission of nitrates into our water supplies which end up in our rain and then our air. No need to sign the Kyoto Treaty. No need to address through legislature many more pressing contributors to our dirty air. Those bastard college kids and their cancer sticks are killing our environment and it needs to stop. In bars. Which you can choose to not go to. Giving colleges a platform to launch a massive (and foolhardy) initiative to ban smoking on campus.

You are right Andrew. I wasn't putting the post in the context of his full argument. Still, there is no harm with someone smoking outside a building.

My university bans smoking within 25ft or 100ft of all campus buildings, depending on what signs you see, who you ask, etc. Except for the university radio DJ's can smoke right outside their door, and you can smoke near buildings if its raining...according to some?

Oh and they also have failed to remove the ashtrays from next to 100+ building entrances....
does this situation seem contrary to you?

Directly outside a building (within 30 ft of the entrance?) I'd be willing to concede the possibility of harming those who MUST enter and exit the building. On the street the harm is definitely up for debate.

Well, anyway. People are still smoking here and it doesn't seem like the KU security is enforcing ban.

I think the right to live far exceeds the right to the pursuit of happiness or mass murderers would be free to go.

I cannot disagree enough; you're either misinterpreting or misunderstanding the rights outlined in our declaration of independence. One of our inalienable rights is life. Another is the pursuit of happiness. The difference in phrasing between the two was deliberate and important: If you do something that stops me from living, then you have infringed upon my right to life. If I do something that stops you from pursuing your happiness, then I have infringed upon one of your inalienable rights. But if I do something that makes you unhappy, that by no means infringes upon your pursuit of happiness. The very idea of universal happiness is ludicrous, so the founding fathers made sure to specify that we simply have the right to pursue it. If, within the context of our laws, you cannot find happiness through your pursuit, well then that sucks for you.

With an outdoor ban in place, you can still pursue happiness. Walk into your house and light up.

That may be a solution for the general public (smoking only in your home...), but this is a college campus. They aren't supposed to be smoking anywhere on campus. Aren't cigarettes addicting? If it were easy to quit, I don't think many of them would be smoking anyway.

Seriously, they should at least provide those smoke boxes that are at the shore or outside the Park City Mall. Otherwise, some of the students may be distracted (or detracting) in class, because they didn't have time to walk off campus to get a few drags in between classes.

Nah, people need to stop smoking.

Who said anything about quitting? No one's forcing them to go to school there, and no one is forcing them to quit smoking even if they do. Heck, no one's forcing them to go to college at all. If smoking was really that important to them, they could drop out.

Perhaps setting up smoke boxes would be good decision for the school, but that's not really for any of us to decide (well, at least not us who do not attend Kutztown).