Smoking on campus

I think the e-cigs are great. They cut down on workers having to go outside for a smoke break. Now they can smoke while they work, as my co-workers are doing.

I've had the same experience with folks near me commenting on the nice smell of the vapor. I use a strong menthol juice which people say smells like peppermint.

My boss absolutely loves it. I never have to go outside or even step away from the phone. My sales are way up.

So I'm supposed to predict when someone is about to pull out a cig and start puffing away? That's unreasonable for me to accommodate your choice to smoke, stop feeling so entitled.

And I don't wear cologne, nor do I eat at KFC ( ), and I shower daily so I don't have BO. Besides, none of those things constrict my throat to the point where I am gasping for air.

I'm not one of those people pushing for an outright ban on all forms of smoking, calling them death sticks or whatever. I really don't care if you and others want to smoke cigarettes, just don't force the toxic smoke on anyone else.

Do you feel the same way about automobile drivers? What about factory workers?

uhhh Obamacare hasn't started yet.

We aren't now forcing people to participate in health care and if you want to smoke, fuck up your lungs and get cancer and then can't pay for treatment, everyone else has to pay for it.

Oh and Dr.Wordforge: Everyone has a disease or family who've got fucked up shit (Or how I learned to stop worrying and love that my family is fucking normal)

This thread is about smoking cigarettes, not about cars (for the umpteenth time). I'm not going to argue that cars and factories don't carry certain health risks as well, but that in no way detracts from my argument. If you got pulled over for speeding, the argument "everyone else was speeding too officer!" would make you no less guilty of speeding. Likewise, the fact that other things cause cancer and heart/lung disease does not mean that second hand smoke isn't dangerous as well. Quit hiding behind that lazy argument.

I can't stand the smell of cigarette smoke. Nasty smelling shit -- and it's horrible for some people, like Tamar and tmm note (and I had an asthmatic friend that would go into an attack if he was around cigarette smoke). That said, cloves smell nice (yes, I know they're worse than cigs health wise).

How is pointing out the hypocrisy of your argument lazy?

"You can't subject me to your toxic fumes!"

"Smokers ALREADY pay taxes and cigarette companies paid fines to cover the healthcare costs of their 'toxic fumes.' Automobiles emit much more pollution but you can't even try an tax them to pay for it, much less ban them. How about you at least get other polluters to pay like smokers do first, THEN we talk about banning, okay?"

How am I a hypocrite? I am also against toxic car and factory fumes, however this thread is about cigarette smoking. You and others have continuously tried to build up this strawman argument to no avail--you are pointing out the hypocrisy of an argument that isn't mine. Stop being intellectually lazy and form a coherent argument in favor of second hand smoke.

Bullshit. There is no coherent argument for second hand smoke in and of itself, just like there can be no coherent argument for any other kind of pollution in and of itself.

The argument is the various ways the government deals with said pollutants, and THIS is where the hypocrisy/double standard argument comes from. If you recall this thread was started about a ban on cigarettes. Get back to me when the same college has a ban on automobiles.

I thought the argument was whether or not colleges had the right to ban college smoking on campus, the government has nothing to do with it. Private institutions have every right to ban smoking on campus, as many in this thread have affirmed. Furthermore, they have every right to be selective in what they do or do not ban.

And once again, the argument that they can't ban cigarettes unless they ban all things that can cause disease is ludicrous. I could get skin cancer from the sun, should they be expected to ban sunlight?

I haven't been exposed to an e-cigarette but it sounds hopeful that it wouldn't bother my breathing at all.

I don't have a problem with smokers....well, I guess that isn't completely true...I think they are fucking idiots for choosing to do something that will take perfectly healthy lungs and destroy them when they have the power to prevent it. I live what they will go through later...and there will come a day they will regret ruining their lives over sucking on smoke.

Anywho...my point is, I don't really care if someone smokes where it doesn't interfere with my need to go certain places and do the things I need to. I certainly don't have a problem just seeing someone smoke and I think I'd applaud an e-smoker.

Anyone trying to ban the appearance of smoking needs to have an ass kicking.

Tamar: I'm really sorry you've had to deal with so many ASSHOLE smokers. I really try not to inflict the result of my addictions on anyone just because I remember realizing how nasty it really is during the period when I quit. I do that to be polite, and it doesn't require a medical issue to have a little common sense and respect. I find it absolutely disgusting that someone would continue to smoke by an entrance to a hospital when someone was literally gasping for breath just to get through the door. That's beyond rude...it's fucking mean.

I think it should just be banned out right. Enough of this bullshit. Ban it.

But let me know ahead of time...... I need to buy some inventory for a new business venture.....

I still think it's pretty stupid to ban smoking in my own car at school, though. I pay out the ass for this jeep and i deserve to hotbox it if i so choose!

First sentence of the UK mission statement:

http://www.uky.edu/Provost/strategic_planning/mission.htm

Yes, and?

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/smokefreecollegesuniversities.pdf

There are plenty of private universities on the list. I stand by my statement, you can choose to interpret it as you wish.

They never will. After the repeal of Prohibition, they figured out that legitimately banning things can result in those bans being overturned. They seem to have no intention of allowing the will of the people to be heard on this, so instead of a ban they just tax the shit out of it until no one can afford it; on the way to that, they make billions. Win/win for them. They're never going to give that up.

Prediction: They can go one of two ways with it. They'll either throttle back the taxes just so they can slowly ramp them up again or they'll level off relative to inflation. Either way, I don't believe I've ever read of an instance of people being allowed to vote on the issue -- has there ever been any vote on tobacco taxation, does anyone know?

California voters passed a major tobacco tax in 1998. Prop 10, I believe. The money went to early childhood services.

So I'm suposed to predict that your self righteous ass will be offended by me standing on a sidewalk when you pass by?

No entitlement there...

Call me crazy, but if there is anything every person on this earth is entitled to it's air decent enough to breathe.

Given the two sides, one side has no choice about needing to breathe and the other side can wait to light up a cigarette until they are in a smoking area...if either side is entitled, it would surely be the people with no choice.

It's rapidly coming to be, though, that both sides will have no choice.

I couldn't agree more.

Weren't you cheerleading when Obama decided to hold off on beefing up the Clean Air Act?

And again, driving is also a choice. How many smog alerts are caused by second hand smoke?

People attack smokers b/c it is easy and socially acceptable. However ask them to work on any of the big issues that actually effect their health more than their sensibilities and OH LOOK AN EAGLE!

You are crazy.
There are a million other offensive smells and pollutants out there that you could bitch about... none of which you have.

ANd the fact is that smokers' choice of where they can light up is becoming more restrictive. First we were banned from indoors, even to the detriment of the hospitality industry. Now you want us barred from public...
No nanny state advocates here...

I traced my penis on a piece of paper. I had to use legal size. It looked like a Smurf house. If the Smurfs built skyscrapers.

I wanted to trace my penis on paper. The MythBusters people had to find paper big enough! Watch this clip to see why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRAEBbotuIE

No, you're supposed to realize that your rights end where others' begin. You do not have the right to put someone else's life in danger, it's negligent.