<p>“Effective January 2007 smoking is prohibited within 50 feet of all University of Florida buildings on the Gainesville campus. This is an expansion of existing policy.”</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure a lot of universities have this rule, you just might not know about it…</p>
<p>i go to UF and not many adhere to that policy</p>
<p>Ok, succinctly:</p>
<p>1) Forget about organizations. Show me laws that state “you can breathe clean, fresh air on public property”. No such law exists.</p>
<p>2) I deny that your discomfort is actually that harmful. You keep talking about studies, but where are the studies? Show me a study that says a statistically significant number of people develop specific problems as a direct result of second hand smoke, and maybe we can talk. Until then, I claim that the smoke is merely an annoying, rather than dangerous, situation.</p>
<p>And whether you call me addicted or not is besides the point. I’ll have you all know that I went cold turkey several months ago, because my girlfriend is an asthmatic. I no longer smoke. But I would sooner go to jail than see smokers’ rights infringed upon.</p>
<p>Quicksilver, a law doesn’t necessarily equal a right (nor does an organization, I realize). We can point to lots of laws that ban smokers from certain areas, but it doesn’t seem to make this fair or justifiable in your eyes. The laws that restrict smoking seem to imply that the right to clean air trumps the right to smoke freely. Just pointing out the inconsistency.</p>
<p>You don’t seem to like this fact, but given the general trends of research, and the beliefs of the majority (on CC, if not in general), the burden of proof re: second-hand smoke falls on you.</p>
<hr>
<p>I’m trying to stay mostly out of this debate…I grew up in California, so I take smoke-free living for granted.</p>
<p>quicksilver:</p>
<p>Here’s a start: [Philip</a> Morris USA - Smoking & Health Issues - Secondhand Smoke](<a href=“http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp]Philip”>http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp)</p>
<p>This is straight from the mouth of a cigarette manufacturer. Seems to me if the makers of the product are saying this stuff, well… maybe you should listen?</p>
<p>To continue [Passive</a> smoking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_hand_smoke]Passive”>Passive smoking - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Look specifically at the “Epidemiological studies of passive smoking” section. I don’t have the time or the inclination to go and find every study on the web for your pleasure; if you’re legitimately interested in what medical studies have been done (as opposed to just trying to make a flippant dismissive argument of the well-known facts of the issue) you can take a look at the wealth of data yourself.</p>
<p>As for the clean air thing, I’ll summarize one last time, since you ignored the last time:</p>
<p>People have the right to good health. Dirty air impairs clean health. Therefore, people have the right to clean air.</p>
<p>Again, before you bring up things like pollution, you can go look at my previous post as to why that’s not relevant.</p>
<p>Quiksilver, </p>
<p>Please stop embarrassing yourself.</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>smokers, don’t you get the message?</p>
<p>Basically everybody, non smokers and government that is, wants to end smoking as it has proven to be harmful to your health and to the health of others. </p>
<p>But giant cigarette corporations and the fact that you’re already too addicted makes a total ban on smoking impossible. </p>
<p>So instead they are going to gradually make it so uncomfortable for you to smoke that you quit or don’t start in the first place. So if you don’t want to have a problem, quit smoking. Honestly, nobody is going to tell you that quitting smoking is a bad idea.</p>
<p>And in this day and age, with all the research already published, it was your stupid mistake to start smoking in the first place, now you have to deal with it. (That is, for our generation)</p>
<p>Everybody has the right not to have their health threatened by your disgusting habit. I think these bans should be expanded to outlaw smoking in public areas not designated as “smoking sections”</p>
<p>Smoking bans are great! Smokers do not realize just how offensive the smoke is to a non-smoker. The smoke permeates everything quickly, for someone with asthma the smoke can trigger an attack. Not to mention things like lung cancer, COPD’s, oral cancer, heart disease, etc. It is amazing that we regulate lead in paint and childrens toys, but some find it a right to start fatal habits in teens.</p>
<p>Smokers are slowing killing themselves and making life a bit more uncomfortable and vile for non-smokers.</p>
<p>That they are willing to continue smoking gives a clear indication that they, as a group, are unaware and uncaring of others.</p>
<p>How could a reasonable person expect rational thought from this misguided and unfortunate group!</p>
<p>I like the idea of banning smoking in public places. Smoking is a choice, breathing is not. </p>
<p>If people want to smoke cigarettes, I can’t stop them. I can’t stop cocaine and heroin addicts from shooting up. I can’t make marijuana smokers stop. However, don’t bring it around me. Don’t pollute my space and put me in harm’s way just because you can’t stop smoking or you don’t want to. If people want to smoke, they should have a little designated place where they can all go and breathe in each other’s smoke, but leave those who have made the choice not to alone and healthy when it comes to cigarettes. Smoking can cause Cancer, if not other health problems. Second-hand smoke may cause these problems for non-smokers. People can choose to take that risk, but don’t subject anyone else to it. </p>
<p>If smoking was harmless, odorless, and without smoke that could make some people fall over and hope for the ambulance to arrive in time, then no one would care. But since this is not the case, move along.If someone wants to shoot themselves in the head, I’d ask them not to stand next to me when they do it, even if I were to only at risk of being grazed. (Humor implied, and yes I realize this is an extreme comparison in ways.)</p>
<p>My school has a ban with-in 20 feet of all buildings, but it’s not inforced. What’s the worst are the groups of people that leave a class, light a cigarette up then all get on their cell phones and walk slow (still in a herd!) where you can’t pass.</p>
<p>Ah, finally some studies. Thank you, 1of42. Sadly, 25% is not a big enough risk, nor is 60%. Not for someone living with a smoker who presumable smokes indoors. And that was in the 1980s… and back then, people smoked much more than they do now.</p>
<p>Alright, so there are dangers associated with it. However, I think it’s fairly self evident that those studies were done on second hand smoke in poorly ventilated areas - indoors, for example. That’s why they moved smoking outside of buildings. But I still assume it’s harmless outside… just like spray painting, say, or those other things that give off noxious gases.</p>
<p>So in a very real way, my previous point, in my mind at least for now, remains intact. Smoking does not infringe upon your rights because it does not harm your health, outdoors, where the smoke is not concentrated. At least as far as I know. Either way, those other numbers weren’t high enough for my previously stated figures, and those were decades ago for indoor smoking.</p>
<p>Ah well. It’s not easy to side with the few against the many. I just hope you realize that it’s not as clear-cut as you’re making it out to be… the simplest answer is often simple but rarely is it correct.</p>
<p>First of all - War Eagle! Secondly, I am going to have to agree with smoking on campus is not a great idea. Maybe they could have a couple of smoking courts or something like that, but I am severely allergic to cigarette smoke - even outside. I know it seems hard to believe, but it makes me look like I have the fly in just a few minutes. Also, my daughter declined a very good, highly-competitive school in Memphis because there were cigarette butts all over the campus, and every where she turned there were groups of kids smoking. That completely turned her off. What is funny about that was when she returned from the visit - someone else asked her - “So, did you notice that everyone smokes?” She decided she didn’t want to take the chance of living with a smoker.</p>
<p>oops - that would be FLU - not FLY!</p>
<p>The original poster was looking for neutral opinions, but this topic is anything but neutral.
My daughter has to walk through a cloud of smoke to enter her dorm. She is athsmatic and allergic to cigarette smoke. When I contacted the housing and residence life dept at her school ( since it was clearly defined in the other dorm that she lived in last yr, but not the dorm she is in this year ) I was told that they are not supposed to be in the archway. The smokers are where they are not supposed to be, but it is not enforced.</p>
<p>So while you are furious that your school is restricting where you can and cannot smoke, try to put yourself in the place of the people who are affected by your habit, not only by the unpleasant smell that stays on your clothes and hair, but by their health.</p>
<p>You can quit smoking, but athsmatics cannot quit their disease.</p>
<p>FYI-</p>
<p>[New</a> Study Confirms Link Between Secondhand Smoke and Heart Disease](<a href=“http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3023099]New”>American Heart Association | To be a relentless force for a world of longer, healthier lives)
[Exposure</a> to secondhand tobacco smoke in outdoor settings a risk, study shows](<a href=“http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/may9/smoking-050907.html]Exposure”>http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/may9/smoking-050907.html)</p>
<p>Every study that is done about secondhand smoke shows it to be even more dangerous than previously thought. The studies are well-supported with repeatedly reproducible results.</p>
<p>The right to breathe clean air falls under public health. If you choose to examine case law, you will see that public health, constitutionally speaking, trumps almost everything else. Further, a “public space” is not the same as a “government-owned space.” A space can be public, semi-public, or private. Public colleges and universities are, in point of law, semi-public, because they are funded in part by the government but are governed by local organizations (i.e. Trustees, President of College, etc.). It’s the same principle that applies to high schools and such. Additionally, even a public space can be regulated for certain things, among them public health issues, providing the governing body agrees.</p>
<p>I would think that most people want to live a life that least endangers others. Few activities we engage in actually involve threats to others. Driving is one exception. And, to assure respect to others, most try to drive carefully and safely. </p>
<p>Smoking is a unique habit – its pleasures for a single person entail health risks to numbers around him or her. It is a disgustingly selfish habit, as smokers decry that their right to pleasure exceeds others’ health.</p>
<p>Then smokers tell us the old Big Tobacco argument – show me the studies empirically relating the habit as being the cause to the cancerous effect. </p>
<p>Science has answered that question ad nauseum.</p>
<p>Now a smoker tells us 60% endangerment is “not enough” to subject that habit to restrictive measures, even though he admits in the same blog that secondhand smoke is attributable to health issues to others. In effect, he is telling us that one person’s 100% pleasure exceeds the harmful effects to 60% of numerous others. </p>
<p>A previous blogger told quicksilver to cease embarrassing himself. I second that.</p>
<p>DeepSeekPhd: Thank you for that second article, in particular. Relevant and interesting. I can already hear some of the potential rebuttals/brush-asides, but even outside of this thread, I appreciated the info.</p>
<p>quicksilver, as the thread goes on more and more information will be brought to your attention regarding how dangerous secondhand smoke really is. But don’t stick your head in the sand - your assumptions that secondhand smoke is not harmful are dead wrong, and if you cared to do the research yourself (instead of a “I haven’t had any studies directly shoved in front of me yet, so they must not exist” policy) you would see that.</p>
<p>And 60% isn’t enough? quicksilver, even 1% is too much. A smoker’s pleasure has no reason to trump the health of others.</p>
<p>You are most welcome. Here’s another study done outdoors on a college campus:
<a href=“http://www.repace.com/pdf/outdoorair.pdf[/url]”>http://www.repace.com/pdf/outdoorair.pdf</a></p>