I am completely behind this move. People will be ok if they have to wait a couple hours for a cig. It's only the polite thing to do when in a crowded area.
Michigan Stadium: Smokefree in 2010
If you're a smoker, plan to hold off for a few hours whenever you come to a Michigan Football game this year:
Michigan Stadium to go smoke-free in 2010 season
The University of Michigan Athletic Department will make Michigan Stadium a smoke-free zone when the 2010 season opens against Connecticut Sept. 4.
"We have allowed individuals to smoke on the concourse in the past but with the new renovations and the university's commitment to become a smoke-free campus in 2011, we decided it was in the best interest of everyone to institute the change now," said U-M Director of Athletics Dave Brandon. "The move will ensure a healthier environment for all fans attending Wolverine football games."
Smoking already was not permitted inside Michigan Stadium's seated-bowl area. Now the smoke-free environment will extend to everything inside the gates of the Big House.
In April of 2009, The University of Michigan announced its commitment to become a smoke-free environment in July 2011. The change aligns perfectly with the institution’s goal to improve the health of the U-M community. Since the change was announced, thousands of students, faculty and staff have provided feedback regarding the roll out of the plan to ensure it occurs in a thoughtful, inclusive and respectful manner.
Subcommittees which include smokers, former smokers and never-smokers are carefully considering the implications for student life, faculty and staff, grounds and facilities, and visitors to the University.
The idea to have the university go entirely smoke-free began with student complaints, and it is one more step along a path set in the 1980s, noted Robert Winfield, M.D., the university’s chief health officer and co-chair of the Smoke-free Initiative committee along with Kenneth Warner, dean of the School of Public Health. In 1987, the university adopted a ban on smoking in buildings, (with exceptions for some residence halls) and in university vehicles. In 1998, the U-M Health System prohibited smoking on its grounds and in public spaces, and in 2003, the student-led Residence Halls Association eliminated smoking from all resident halls.
The U-M will join the University of Iowa and Indiana University, both of which implemented their smoke-free campuses in 2008. In all, more than 260 campuses in the United States and elsewhere have gone smoke-free.
Not surprising, to say the least. Also, probably a welcome change for some (most?).
I don't smoke so I really can't relate, but I think some people are going to have a hard time waiting 3+ hours between cigs. I'm all for banning smoking in bars/restaurants, but I think this is going a little overboard.
...then maybe they'll take that as a sign that maybe they should quit
the only smoke allowed is the vapor trail left by denard and co.
to hold people over.
Never have been a smoker, and while I support the idea of banning smoking when there are large crowds around, I question the smoking ban as a whole. From what I understand, there have been no efforts to create designated smoking areas for those that still want to smoke while on campus. I know at some airports they have smoking rooms, and I don't think something like that would be too hard to implement. I feel like the ban is effectively taking away a person's right to do what they want with their body. Practically speaking, many people are stuck on campus for 8+ hours a day. Try not to limit your thinking to students, also consider people who make their living working for the university. They don't have a house or appt. they can run to between classes if they want a smoke break. I don't condone smoking, but if people want to do it, then that is their business. There are very plausible ways of making it so they can do it without effecting the general public.
Also, there is some speculation that MSC may benefit financially from the smoking ban. She has stock options with Johnson & Johnson, who make stop-smoking aids. I don't know how much she could stand to gain, but there is potentially a conflict of interests here.
I wanted to respond to your points, but I rather keep political debates off the board, as er mgoblog policy.
This has little to do with the health of the smokers and everything to do with the health of the non-smokers. This isn't about dictating what you do with your body...it's about dictating what you can't do to the bodies of others.
Sorry for the political edge, Tim, but France, the "speculation" about MSC's conflict of interest is a contrived pile of horseshit dreamed up by yahoos who think smoking in class should be legal. These are the same people who say that regardless of proximity and duration of exposure, secondhand smoke is literally harmless. Read the letter to editor that appeared a day or two after Soave's Daily hackjob. It was written by the University's chief health officer.
becomes a "second-hand smoke" issue.
the ban won't have odd nuances like banning the golf course, which is unnecessary, but your original statement blanketly cast the entire idea as a joke, which I have a problem with. And it's not like we're the only major University to do this.
where they are neceessary and proper.
Indeed, my one and only point is that a campus-wide ban will produce, as you say, "odd nuances, like banning [smoking at] the golf course, which is unnecessary."
I think this is called debate. And listening. And understanding.
So we agree; some smoking bans, which serve to protect nonsmoking third-parties, most particularly including people in their workplaces, are needed. And sometimes, smoking bans need to be extended, where, for instance, people gather at doorways and entrances in cold weather. That can be obnoxious. Indeed, "noxious" might be the right word. And there is never, ever, any excuse for any smoker, anywhere, to litter an area with cigar and cigarette butts, etc. There oughta be a law. We could call it a "littering ordinance." Say, we've probably got one of those already!
And I hope that we can agree also, that the University-wide smoking ban will be "a joke" if it does not exempt places like the Blue Lot and the Golf Course. Those would be the "odd nuances."
But honestly, I don't think that Michigan's exalted Administration will exempt the Blue Lot and the Golf Course. I think that they will stand by that part of the big joke. And the punishment, as I understand it, will be that a University official might come by and remind any smokers that it is against policy and please put it out. My response will be to say very politely that, Gosh, I am so sorry. And walk away.
There are lots of things that are dangerous to breath in. Exhaust fumes from cars is one. The use of cleaning agents in buildings. Fresh paint. Construction sites. Dust from traffic. Second-hand smoke is just one of many.
If you're so incredibly angry about second-hand smoke, what do plan to do about every other threat to respiratory health?
What about people with colds who show up to class anyway? That can be far more damaging than some second-hand smoke.
And last I checked the common cold or even influenza was not as serious as cancer.
I'm a major advocate of alternative fuels and I'm an engineering student, so maybe I'll have an impact on that later. Most cleaning agents are non-toxic in the dosage levels the employees receive even if a room is cleaned and left open. Fresh paint hasn't been toxic in regular dosage levels since lead paint was abolished.
None of that matters anyway since the straw man you set up has a major flaw...all of those agents you listed actually serve a purpose. Smoking serves no purpose to the smoker or to anyone else. Smoking is also the most controllable since all of the agents you listed are also NECESSARY.
The other issue is not IF something is potentially harmful, but exactly HOW harmful it really is. Your argument more or less translates to saying walking and running are equally harmful on your knees and ankles.
and no straw man.
I don't know where you get your information, but cleaning agents contain some of the most toxic chemicals most of us ever run into. The most profound effect is not acute poisoning, but long-term low-level exposure where such chemicals serve as carcinogens.The toxicity of fresh paint depends on the solvent used in the paint. The primary reason lead paint was banned was because children consumed lead dust from deteriorating paint.
While it is fair to say that such things serve a purpose, saying that they are "NECESSARY" is a bit of a strech. Many are used for cosmetic reasons. Is that necessary?
Much driving is recreational or at least unnecessary as well.
For those who smoke, smoking serves a variety of purposes. It is why they smoke.
I am not saying that we should stop using cleaning agents. Or stop giving an old wall a new paint job. Nor should we only drive when absolutely necessary. Doing these things often makes sense. But, more importantly are an exercise in our freedom.
Something you seem to care little about.
It was only a matter of time before someone accused me of being a freedom-hating communist or something like that.
For those who smoke, smoking serves a variety of purposes. It is why they smoke.
Thanks for the clear, detailed analysis.
but long-term low-level exposure where such chemicals serve as carcinogens.
In the same way that Teflon causes cancer. This is not only up for debate, but is once again off-topic due to the idea of purpose.
I think I'll side with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who famously wrote:
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
Listen, nobody is going to accuse you of that in Michigan. Indeed, if you want that sort of nanny state kind of thinking you would have to come to Ontario. Here smoking has been banned everywhere for years (although the concept of the outdoor designated smoking area is very evolved here...think structures with roofs where non smokers can look and point at the smokers) and nobody thinks much of it. Smoking bans...no big deal here anymore...our elected officials have far bigger fish to fry...like eliminating all lawn chemicals or not allowing MMA...that's freedom hating communists.
If you were looking for that you'd have to move to Toronto...look for a place called Queen's Park. Ask for a guy named Dalton.
I am 100% for protecting the health of non-smokers. I think banning smoking indoors (bars, restaurants, etc.) was a great idea. However, it is possible to protect non-smokers while still giving smokers the ability to smoke on campus. Unfortunately, that has not been addressed at this time.
Also, I agree the speculation is thin at best, but I was trying to present another side to the story.
I think this is crap. I am all for no smoking in bars and being x number of feet away from buildings, but seriously. Don't smokers pay taxes. Why cant they leave an area around the fence or something, there is no way that is going to harm anyone. If they are really worried about peoples health, why don't they stop selling hot dogs to all the fat people I see around the stadium?
Can we still smoke pot in the stadium?
It is Ann Arbor, after all...
Just stay within the city limits and off campus. It's much easier to deal with a citation rather than a misdemeanor or a felony.
People still smoke within the bowl and the ushers do nothing about it when people complain.
I can confirm that many Michigan fans still "smoke within the bowl." Not usually in the stadium, though.
The real big news happens when the entire campus goes "smoke-free." And that, my friends, means that it will be forbidden to smoke while surveying your tee shot on the 3rd hole of the Golf Course, where you are, uh, outdoors and approximately a quarter-mile away from the nearest complaining witness.
I think I might just like to see if President Coleman and the Regents are willing to hop into a golf cart and take the ten-minute ride out to the back nine to catch me smoking.
The campus-wide smoking ban is not about protecting a safe environment, or combatting the evils of secondhand smoke. Because those things could be handled on a buidling-by building smoking ban. With which I have absolutely no problem.
No; the campus-wide ban is effectively a statement by the University -- "We don't like smoking, we don't want you to smoke, and we are going to instruct you not to smoke whether you are bothering anybody or not."
So the diag, the Arboretum, the Stadium parking lot, the sidewalk in front of the Union, the patio outside the clubhouse at Radrick Farms -- all no-smoking.
It is a real joke. An embarassment, much like the 55 mph speed limit.
Man you totally missed out on the "don't turn this into a political discussion" point, huh?
I think he's just mad that he pays at least $15,000 a year to be told what not to do. It's all related to the University, so is it really political?
that there are many more people who are mad that they pay $15,000 a year for some asshole to blow cancer fumes down their throats.
I didn't think I made it "political."
And I have no problem with protecting everyone from second-hand smoke.
My only point is that an all-encompassing, campus-wide ban on smoking will have some ridiculous aspects to it. I've outlined some of them. In fact, practically the only time I ever smoke is on a golf course, and after home-game wins.
Nothing more, and nothing less, than a debate about a University policy.
The word is that they are fed up with the daily chore of picking up those cigarette butts that never end up in the designated locations
i don't think you can blame someone for not wanting to do something that's outside of the job description and kinda gross.
If everyone followed the "rules" of sanitation (i.e. everyone threw out their trash at the games in designated waste receptacles/recycling bins), a lot of sanitation workers would be out of a job. So yes, I think I'd say it is within their job description.
The cigarette butt problem will only get worse when there are no ashtrays around. people will still smoke on campus, there won't be police running around harassing smokers. It's just a policy in place to 1) catch up with other large institutions, and 2) reduce insurance premiums for the entire campus.
Nope. That cigarette butt you chucked continues to spread toxins. Tobacco smoke doesn't just vanish...it tends to build up on surfaces and in cavities near smokers.
Plus, if you read the Michigan Daily, the chief health officer himself wrote a letter to the editor and asserts that this policy is what a majority of students want according to polls from years ago until now.
I don't think any policy that moves to protect the health of the student body from the actions of others could ever be considered a "joke." There was a building-by-building smoking ban. Doesn't help when you step outside any given building and there are six people blasting gaseous tar down your throat.
The University can't make a rule that says you can't smoke within a certain radius of people. That's just plain stupid. This is what they CAN do. I'm sorry if you're offended, but I'll be damned if your "stick-it-to-the-man" attitude gives me cancer.
It also has to do with health Insurance cost for the employees if they ban smoking in the work place insurance rates go down.
I agree completely. It's bullshit, bleeding heart liberal crap.
That was a mature response. I'm sure those smokers who negged you before probably won't double down on that reply wishing death upon them.
Also, frankly, I don't think a smoker is going to give two-shits that you're a marathon runner when deciding to quit. I don't get how that qualifies you to make an assinine statement wishing death upon smokers. Nor would I expect them to care about your marathon-running anymore than you apparently do about their habit.
I don't smoke but had to neg you for being such an immature assclown. Get off your high horse.
Because it makes you look like a badass. How would anyone ever know you were a badass if you didn't smoke?
Would you get your stuff together here...people are generally thinking smoking is a bad idea and likely in agreement with the sentiment. People on the board aren't stupid...smoking is bad and unhealthy. That said, for the few on here who are addicted...show some tolerance or compassion...it's a difficult addiction...there is no need to be a complete a-hole either.
I could neg you to zero, I would.
Your family members chose to smoke. Addicts are addicts...if it wasn't smoking it was going to be something else. You've just spent an entire thread villifying smokers then expect us to feel sorry for your family members who were smokers? This does not compute...
I strongly believe individuals should have the right to a message board free from Douchbaggery...therefore, I think you should leave...
...and I smoke a pipe. About 3-4 times a week. Does that make me okay?
I think the most selfish habit on the planet is narcissism.
And for the record, a lot of second hand smoke studies don't even show statistical significance. They were pushed through by the gov't for obvious reasons.
What does racing have to do with anything? I'm sure the only difference between our natural abilities and workout routines is the fact that I smoke a pipe.
In regards to your first paragraph, I never said any of that. In regards to second hand smoke, studies have shown that not as much second hand smoke gets inhaled as the gov't would have you think. One showed that if an average number of people were allowed to smoke in an office, a non-smoker would "smoke" about 7 cigarettes a year. The body can reverse the effects.
I'm not wildly pro-smoking. I like smoking bans in bars. I don't think you should be able to smoke at work. But people should be able to have an outlet. But I don't blindly believe every statistic the gov't and the media throw at us.
What about the adverse effects of marathons? What happens when the joints of you and your "running friends" are shot? Where does it stop?
What do you mean, YOU PEOPLE?
How big was the office? What's an "average" number of smokers? What kind of cigarettes? Ventilation? Drywall? How many cigarettes a day would this average number of people smoke? How far apart would the employees be? Cubicles? Separate rooms?
My point is, referencing one study and then withholding every important detail carries no meaning.
I worked in a computer shop for two summers and we made some house calls. Went to an old guy's place and his living room REEKED of tobacco. Major chain smoker. However, I went into his office where his computer was and the air cleared instantly. No ashtray and not even a whiff of smoke. Door was kept closed. However, I opened this guy's computer, and there was black ash caked all over every last circuitboard. As I've said a couple of times, tobacco smoke doesn't just go away.
On top of that, the human body cannot "reverse" the effects of smoking. We wouldn't see emphysema and prematurely aged lungs if the effects could in any way be "reversed."
Also, for someone who talks about "blindly" believing things, I think it's pretty blind to think that walking out of a building and getting blasted with a (preventable) perpetual haze of tar, cadmium, and a shitload of other carcinogens somehow isn't harmful to the body.
Alright, I'm don't want to get into a big secondhand smoke debate. And I don't have time to look up studies and such. When you look at the studies behind the story, they don't always paint the exact same picture.
I think it's pretty blind to think that walking out of a building and getting blasted with a (preventable) perpetual haze of tar, cadmium, and a shitload of other carcinogens somehow isn't harmful to the body.
I think that might be a slight over exaggeration when walking by someone who smokes. I doubt it's much worse than what is emitted by exhaust on cars.