<p>My school has a ban on smoking except in designated areas, but it’s hardly ever followed. I can pretty much guarantee that there will be at least one smoker walking alongside me on my way to or from classes, which is a 20-minute walk along one or two main paths (so no easy way to escape).</p>
<p>I’m definitely not a fan of cigarettes, especially since it’s one of my asthma triggers. But I have no problem with smokers as long as they are respectful of those who don’t wish to partake in their smoke. Unfortunately this is college; most kids here aren’t mature enough to think of anyone but themselves.</p>
<p>The nicotine-addicted health workers at the hospital complex on campus are the same way, very little respect for the sick kids (major childrens’ hospital) in the area.</p>
<p>ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad, yes the list is partial, and it’s good to know that even more smokefree colleges could be listed. Does anyone know where to find a more complete list?</p>
<p>As an ex-smoker, I would rather see the damn things banned everywhere and taken off the market. Having said that, I understand why Swarthmore has a handful of smoking dorms where students can smoke in their rooms with the doors closed.</p>
<p>The College has a strong tradition of not imposing rules on students in a top-down fashion and not implementing rules that can’t be enforced. The Dean of Student Life addressed the issue in a student newspaper article last year:</p>
<p>There are some designated healthy living and non smoking dorms here, though. My guess is that the fact that Haverford is a strict Honor Code school has something to do with their decisions on this as it puts even more pressure on students as far as reporting, etc. There are other reputable schools allowing smoking in dorms - I think Lafayette still does, for one. </p>
<p>Another reason I disagree with the concept of smoking dorms - the smoke in those buildings where everyone smokes has to be at even more dangerous levels than would be typical in a dorm where smokers and non smokers coexist. .</p>
<p>The list in the OP isn’t comprehensive. Best way to get specific information about schools is by searching the individual school websites under key words like “smoking policy.”</p>
<p>I know. But the school is still choosing between banning smoking dorms altogether versus putting these young people in an even more toxic environment than they’d be in under the old policies.</p>
<p>Having designated nonsmoking and smoking dorms makes sense to me. It protects those who do not smoke while allowing smokers to light up to their hearts’ content. And there’s no necessary requirement to be a smoker to get into a smoking dorm, just an expectation that those in a nonsmoking dorm will respect its inhabitants by refraining from smoking in the building.</p>
<p>Smokers choose to engage in a toxic activity on a regular basis. Just like I choose not to. Are you saying their choice supersedes mine?</p>
<p>^^^ No, to the contrary. My preference is for schools to get rid of the smoking dorms entirely, as so many are now doing. If it’s a hassle to light up for these young adults, some of whom have just started the smoking habit, it could be a deterrent to developing smoking as an entrenched habit. It’s also not fair, IMO, to the support staff and people who have to go into these buildings on a regular basis.</p>
<p>At Swarthmore, smoking is not allowed in any pubic area of a smoking dorm. Can’t smoke in the halls. Or the bathrooms. Or the lounges. Only in a student room with the door closed. Support staff don’t go student rooms ever except under exceptional circumstances.</p>
<p>There are no “ducts” in the smoking dorms at Swarthmore. It’s not forced air heat.</p>
<p>Again, 88% to 90% of the students live in dorms where smoking is prohibited completely. The only students who live in smoking dorms do so because they have chosen to. Even in those dorms, they can only smoke in their own room with the door closed – not in halls, not in lounges, not in common areas.</p>
<p>Point taken as far as ducts and Swarthmore, specifically, idad, but regarding the first part of that statement, smoke can’t be successfully contained in a room. It goes under doorways, through windows, even through outlets and plumbing. If you walked through or took an air sample in the hallways you’d still find levels of second hand smoke. I understand that some people are going to disagree with the notion of an outright ban and see it as an issue of individual freedom. Regardless, the effect on employees and workers is one of the reasons many schools have used to justify banning designated smokers dorms/areas.</p>
<p>If college is to prepare the students for the workplace then banning smoking in dorms and every other building on campus is a good start since they’ll likely not be able to smoke in their workplace or hotels either. They may as well get used to going outside to indulge their habit.</p>
<p>I’ve also seen the incovenience of being able to smoke outside only help some smokers quit.</p>
<p>I agree with the points you made about a indoor smoking ban preparing students for the workplace, but your last point, in particular, was very true for my brother-in-law. He was a life long smoker, but always said that as soon as smoking was banned in his building, he would kick the habit. Sure enough, the day smoking was no longer permitted inside his office, was the last day he smoked. He’s been smoke free for years.</p>
<p>Smoking is not a “habit”. It is a drug addiction. Calling it a “habit” makes it more difficult for smokers to understand their addiction and what they must do to quit.</p>
It seems to be both. The habit part is powerful though (so is the addiction) and it’s this habit that the inconvenience of smoking can help break. They’ll still have the pull from the addiction side but the habit side gets broken when they can’t light up at the desk, in a conference room, before and after dinner, while in a bar with a drink, etc. They’ll still have the addiction side to deal with but they need to make a more conscious effort to feed the addiction when it’s not so convenient. If nothing else it seems to reduce the number of cigarettes they smoke which reduces the amount of nicotine they’re putting in their system which I assume would eventually make it easier to quit.</p>
<p>I saw a lot of smokers quit once they could no longer smoke at work and at restaurants and bars. The breaking of the habit sure seemed to help them overcome the addiction and quit.</p>
<p>Not really. A drug addiction like nicotine is an all or nothing proposition. “Tapering off” as the smoking cessation people call it has been pretty conclusively shown in studies to not help quit rates at all. If anything, forced cutting down just puts the smoker into a state of withdrawal before every smoke, thus reinforcing the notion that each and every cigarette is essential to their very ability to exist. That’s why so many people quit for six months or a year and end up smoking again. They think they can have one cigarette, no big deal. But, one is not a choice. It’s either none or all of them again. 95% of relapsed quitters end up back smoking their full amount. It’s like a junkie. An addict can’t have just a little heroin every once in a while.</p>
<p>From an overall societal standpoint, the increasing difficulty of being a nicotine addict and the unpleasantness of the frequent withdrawal states does encourage people to quit. It also helps people trying to quit, especially no-smoking bars as alcohol is the number one “cause” of relapses.</p>
<p>Having said that, enforcement of a no-smoking ban in a college setting is problematic. If I’m a college administrator, my number one goal is going to be to get the smokers out of the dorms where non-smokers live and breath. Stop punishing the non-smokers. If the smokers want to kill themselves, have at it. It’s their choice. They can decide to quit at any time, just like the 46 million ex-smokers in the United States.</p>