<p>Quicksilver wrote:
“Assume for the sake of argument I dislike people with bleached blond hair. Assume also that the majority of people dislike bleached blond hair. Does that give us - the majority - to ban bleached blond hair? I mean, people aren’t born with bleached blond hair. They could stop anytime. And hey, they look better without it, right?”</p>
<p>Please tell me you’re brighter than this. </p>
<p>This isn’t a matter of personal opinion, it has to do with the majority of people who do not smoke wanting to exercise their right to a cleaner, healthier environment. </p>
<p>As an ex-smoker who doesn’t preach, I couldn’t care less if twenty of you crammed into a Volkswagen with closed windows and smoked until the nice pink tissues of your lungs all turned to blackened ash. That’s your right. You do not have the right to do something that may negatively impact the health of those around you. Dealing with smokers who have breath that smells like they’ve been licking ashtrays and stench that identifies them as smokers five feet away is bad enough. </p>
<p>You remind me of people who complain that they have no right to blast their stereo at all hours of the night, never considering the rights of those who may want to sleep. </p>
<p>Common courtesy should prevail, even if common sense does not.</p>
<p>ha…that’s nothing UNC-CH is banning smoking within 100 feet of any campus building, which effectively makes it impossible to smoke anywhere on campus itself.</p>
<p>FatheroftheBoarder wrote:
“Name any other habit by man that seriously endangers the health of those innocents around them? There is none.”</p>
<p>Well, sure there are. Drunk driving, is one. Driving too fast is another. Leaving young children unattended in a car is a third. Leaving them home alone is a fourth. I’m sure there are more, but our government and other agencies recognized that some people were endangering the health and welfare of others by doing those things, and they instituted laws to protect the innocent. Just like they’re doing now with the laws and rules that deal with smoking in public.</p>
<p>I think even if it is pouring down rain people shouldn’t be subject to that. So it’s raining? The smokers don’t want to be inconvenienced and get wet outside so non-smokers have to be inconvenienced by the disgusting smoke??? I think not!</p>
<p>Where I live, smoking anywhere on public school property (including the parking lot and at the football field) will get you a $100 fine. Auburn could just make it illegal to smoke anywhere on campus. </p>
<p>I can’t get over smokers who complain about their “rights.” They want the right to participate in an activity that has not only ruins their health, but damages the health of anyone who comes near them. If you want to kill yourself go ahead – but not until they invent a cigarette that has no smoke coming out of the other end to pollute MY air.</p>
<p>
[quoteThat policy is stupid banning smoking while walking/on sidewalks? I hope it doesn’t work out.</p>
<p>honestly, it’s not that big a deal if people smoke outside, you people whining about smokers outside are full of it, grow up and if you don’t like people smoking walk away from them, not everyone has to cater to you. I bet the pollutants in the air contribute more to health problems than 2nd hand smoke from people passing by you on the street.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Technically, you are catering to the smoker, if you keep breathing their second-hand smoke or ignore it. Now, why should we have to cater to them, a minority?</p>
<p>Kudos to Auburn for advancing from the dark ages- UW-Madison started a smoking ban, including within 30 feet of university buildings, in 1995. Physician here- every pressure we can place to reduce smoking is beneficial. Any further words are either preaching to the choir or will fall on deaf ears.</p>
<p>My school has a rule like that (50 ft., I think, from buildings). I get incredibly annoyed because it can’t really be enforced and I constantly walk by smokers. Just a few days ago I was sitting on a bench right outside a classroom building and some guy sat down next to me and lit up! That is beyond rude, in my opinion. I think that many (not all) smokers don’t use common sense and need rules like this one. I’m not sure how some smokers can be so inconsiderate to the fact that many people don’t want to be around disgusting, poisonous smoke. 10 feet from the building is nothing (and other students may still be forced to walk past smokers to get to class even at that distance). Also, I don’t think that it is unreasonable to ban pathways; when smokers smoke there, I’m sure non-smokers are also forced to inhale the smoke on their way to class. Good for Auburn for promoting HEALTHINESS! Non-smokers don’t want to decrease their lifespans just because of the silly decisions of smokers. </p>
<p>Point: If you want to kill yourself, do it where nobody else gets hurt in the process.</p>
<p>I think this rule should be applied to every public place. I am horribly asthmatic and I am partially deaf (both due to years of exposure to 2nd hand smoke). I’d hate for anybody else to have the health problems I do so if I were a smoker I wouldn’t subject people to my horrible habit. </p>
<p>I hate going to places like restaurants (note RESTAURANTS, not bars) or school and having an asthma attack because somebody can’t go outside to smoke. It’s simply disgusting and rude.</p>
<p>I’m happy to say the Univ. of South Carolina instituted it’s own No Smoking Policy some time ago. Quoting a few sections from it with emphasis added…</p>
<p>The University of South Carolina (USC) JOINS WITH the American COLLEGE Health Association (ACHA) in supporting the findings of the Surgeon General that tobacco use in any form, active and passive, is a significant health hazard…</p>
<p>We acknowledge the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statistics that about 70% of all smokers report that they want to quit smoking completely. We recognize that the implementation of a tobacco/smoking policy will have an immediate effect on our smokers, thus WE ALSO WILL PROVIDE prevention, education and cessation initiatives to support the non-use of tobacco products…</p>
<p>While this policy allows smoking and use of tobacco products for most outside areas of campus away from buildings, with specified exceptions, IT IS THE INTENT OF THE UNIVERSITY TO FURTHER DEVELOP POLICY IN THE FUTURE THAT WILL ELIMINATE ALL USE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS ANYWHERE ON CAMPUS OR AT ANY UNIVERSITY-DIRECTED PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES. …</p>
<p>Smoking and use of all tobacco products is prohibited in all USC-owned or -leased buildings, buildings on university-owned land, all university vehicles and in designated outdoor areas including:
Entrances, balconies, decks, patios and outside stairways to buildings and outdoor passageways to entrances, decks, patios and stairways
Within twenty-five (25) feet of a building or an air intake unit/opening
Courtyards or other areas where air circulation may be impeded by architectural, landscaping or other barriers
Outdoor entry or service lines, such as for ticket purchases, event admissions, bus stops, ATMs, etc. (THIS ONE IS GREAT!)
Outdoor seating areas provided by dining services on campus
Outdoor areas where there is fixed seating, such as William Brice Stadium, Sarge Frye Field, etc.
Areas that are reserved for events that do not have fixed seating but for which the sponsor determines that the interests of nonsmokers need to be protected, such as events on the Horseshoe, outdoor concerts, university receptions, etc. </p>
<p>ENFORCEMENT FOR THE POLICY is the responsibility of EACH MEMBER OF THE CAROLINA COMMUNITY. Faculty, staff, and/or students are expected to enforce the policy for their facilities and/or sponsored activities…</p>
<p>Well, when you smoke, you force others to smell it when they don’t want to. That seems more “tyrannic” to me. At least you can go elsewhere to smoke or something.</p>
<p>Oh my god.. of course that right isn’t stated anywhere. I can’t believe anyone is addicted enough to cigs to say that…</p>
<p>We all have the right to live. We all have the right to ban anything that causes harm to others. Our wellbeing is an inherent right. Secondhand smoke is deadly. We should not have to ‘hold our breaths’ so you can puff to your heart’s content. We should not have to walk a mile out of our way to class every day so you can destroy your shriveled, blackened little lungs and die early deaths from lung cancer and emphysema. Silver is obviously looking forward to dying decades before the national average, but it is our god-given right not to have to suffer the negative consequences of a stupid choice that he makes as an individual. I should hope that a right as transparent and transcending as that is never written down. For it to need to be written down would be tragic.</p>
<p>By the time I graduate from my smoker heavy school, I am likely to have the lungs of someone who had been smoking a pak a day for two years straight. You have no idea how much this ****es me off.</p>
<p>Huhhh… It seems odd that all these higher education students don’t understand the health problems related to smoking. They are very clear…smoking should just be banned completely.</p>
<p>This ban sounds like a breath of fresh air. If someone can invent a device to keep the smoke to the smoker, then let the smokers have thier freedom.</p>
<p>Darn, this is a good idea- I give permission to any of you smart people to develop this idea.</p>
<p>Call the product …</p>
<p>“Don’t Fear the Reaper.” or KISS: Keeping In Smoking, Stupid</p>