<p>I doubt this action is motivated primarily by concern for the dangers of temporary exposure to second-hand smoke or the rights of nonsmokers. I’d guess it’s about the burden of health care costs for treating employees who smoke and searching for ways to either strongly encourage them to quit the habit or quit the job.</p>
<p>I think our last college president got sick of seeing cigarette butts and that was his major motivation. I have not seen any indications that they want people to quit. They offer lots of weight loss/get moving programs, but I don’t remember seeing stop smoking programs. Maybe I have missed it because I don’t smoke.</p>
<p>Years ago, I worked in a bank check processing center. At the time I was inputting data on a computer and the girl next to me had a somewhat more supervisory roll. She would light up a cigarette, put it in her ashtray (2 feet from me) and go off to resolve some problem or other. I was trapped because I just inputted data and couldn’t walk around. This would happen 2-3 times a day. When I complained to the manager she said there was nothing she could do. </p>
<p>I like to think that the laws against smoking in the workplace were a direct result of Kathy’s efforts to kill me slowly with her unsmoked smoking cigarettes. If you’ve never experienced this it’s torture, really.</p>
<p>At the same time, I don’t believe that SUNY and other employers should in effect attempt to FORCE people to quit smoking. It is, after all, still legal like it or not.</p>
<p>My mother once said, “I smoked and drank when I was pregnant with you, and you turned out okay.” I responded that if she hadn’t, I could have been a brain surgeon. Hahaha</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is why. Right here. They can lower the health insurance cost for everyone at the college if they adopt a no smoking policy. Add to that a risk analysis that points out to them that one of the leading causes of fires on college campuses is the improper disposal of smoking materials, and the potential for lowering maintenance costs for the physical plant and a no smoking policy starts to look really good to a college.</p>
<p>While understand that this is an addiction, it ia a behavior that affects others, as well as oneself, and IMO its not fair to inflict the secondary effects on others. When I drive my car and have the windows or vents or sunroof open, I do not want the smoke from the car in front of me or next to me wafting into my car because the clown with the cigarette holds it out the window. Keep it in your car buddy. I dont want to share your smoke. Interesting that many cars no longer have lighters or ashtrays. Maybe that is a message.</p>
<p>Kudos to the many millions who have successfully quit smoking. It is doable.</p>
<p>I support the no smoking on campus rule. It seemed ridiculous to me that on college tours they talked about how eco-friendly the campus was, how wonderful the gym facilities were, how healthy the food was (with vegan and other options) and then the campus was littered with cigarette butts and kids smoking all over the place.</p>
<p>As I’ve explained, I hate smoking. However, I do recognize that we have a multi-billion industry dedicated to addicting people to cigarettes and selling them to them forever after.</p>
<p>One of the most interesting things to contemplate is that we wouldn’t even have a country without tobacco. It’s the only thing that made the Jamestown colony succeed. Read John Barthes’ The Sot-Weed factor for more info, or any good book on American history.</p>
<p>Can’t we direct our anger toward Phillip Morris and the like and not the individuals who get snagged?</p>
<p>I support the no smoking on campus rules. I would personally consider it a selling point. No one under 60 should still be smoking in the first place.</p>
<p>Absolutely fine to target the tobacco companies. But making campuses smoke free is beneficial to both the smokers and non smokers. Also not much different than the schools (pre and post secondary) that have restricted or removed the sale of soda in the vending machines. And then there is Mayor Bloomberg’s stunt with the big gulps… Goal is to reduce availability.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seems like sufficient reason to me. We’re most of us grousing on some other thread somewhere about how much it costs to educate our kids, and how much faster than inflation students’ term bills have been going up. I’m happy to see colleges and universities cut costs in this way.</p>
<p>The reason College professors and students know that smoking is bad for them is because years ago, against the strength and money of Big Tobacco, people concerned about public health forced this issue, demanding disclosure, labeling and public awareness. Bloomberg is riding the wave towards healthier food choices, not because he is a “nannie” but because someone has to force the issue into the public spotlight. You take for granted “the smoking is bad for” you message. I remember when smoking was marketed as a healthy, cool product. Long way, baby.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not so much of a message as car companies finding that eliminating these items from the standard equipment list saves them money, since most buyers never use them (they do offer such things as optional accessories). Note that even many smokers do not smoke in their cars due to not wanting to embed the smoke smell that others dislike into the interior.</p>
<p>The University of California campuses are going to ban smoking also. It is already banned in the dormitories and inside other buildings.</p>
<p>OP, while I do have compassion for the addicted, I simply cannot muster any outrage over these smoking restrictions. I don’t lobby for them, but no, no matter how I toss it around in my head (and I know there are good arguments being made by some), my ire just will not be raised.</p>