Michigan Stadium: Smokefree in 2010

Submitted by Tim on

If you're a smoker, plan to hold off for a few hours whenever you come to a Michigan Football game this year:

[Press Release]

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.

For more information on the smoke-free initiative, go to http://www.hr.umich.edu/smokefree/

[/Press Release]

Not surprising, to say the least. Also, probably a welcome change for some (most?).

Comments

Baloo_Dance

June 7th, 2010 at 2:08 PM ^

...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.

Wolverine318

June 7th, 2010 at 2:47 PM ^

ROFL....so you believe small organic compounds found in tobacco and cigarrette smokke which are DNA intercalators (ie they squeeze themselves in between the individual bases of DNA) do not cause cancer? Wow...you just disproved 20 years of molecular biology research. LOL....If you believe that then you must work in the tobacco industry.

I would love to see you race against me in any distance 10 miles and longer. Secondly, there is a major difference between pipe smoking (which removes the majority of the carcinogens and tar from the tobacco) and cigs. I have a few running friends who pipe smoke and are fine. None of them smoke cigs. Only a moron who wants to be on an O2 tank later in their life would voluntarily smoke cigs.

Dude, narcissim never cause cancer.

Baloo_Dance

June 7th, 2010 at 3:19 PM ^

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?

Wolverine318

June 7th, 2010 at 3:25 PM ^

Link the studies from a peer reviewed journal and I will believe you. I don't believe every statistic either. I only believe what is backed up through empirical evidence.

If you have joint problems then the first thing to look at is your diet. Any damage done by road running is easily healed through your bodies natural defenses if you have a healthy diet high in nutrients. FYI, my running has zero second effects. I love when people try to link smoking to eating or other activities where there are no chemicals passed onto others in gas form.

Do you people even remember a modicum of physics? I swear the world would be a better place if the public had a strong understanding of basic chemistry, physics, and biology. We would be less inclined to believe in industrial and political bullcrap.

Monocle Smile

June 7th, 2010 at 3:33 PM ^

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.

Baloo_Dance

June 7th, 2010 at 3:44 PM ^

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. 

Wolverine318

June 7th, 2010 at 5:06 PM ^

hey its your prejorative if you want to fill up your vascular system with carbon monoxide, tar, and assorted grab bag of carcinogens. Just don't force that upon me when you light up next to me. 

It doesn't take that long to look up a second hand smoking study. A ten second search on scholar.google.com will come up with thousands of studies.

03 Blue 07

June 7th, 2010 at 3:56 PM ^

Here's a serious question: What on earth does smoking outdoors, away from people, have to do with "causing them cancer." Are you trying to make the claim that if I smoke a cigaretter a quarter-mile away from you, I am "blasting carcinogens" down your throat? Come on, man.

And as for the arguments about why someone would do something, well, I won't torture the point, but personal freedom and all that, man. And I'm sorry, you're not going to convince me that if I smoke a cigarette outdoors 100 feet from you, or a quarter mile, or whatever, that it's going to have any effect on what you're breathing. I mean, dude- we all get it that you hate smoking, and I am sorry for what your family has gone through with emphysema, etc. But I think you're making some serious leaps of logic and some definite strawman arguments.

Wolverine318

June 7th, 2010 at 4:28 PM ^

Seriously, why do you smoke? I have never in my life understood what would cause someone to brazingly harm their health and those in their near vicitinity just to relive some stress.

I never made that argument that somone 0.25 miles away causes cancer. Simple thermodyanics would tell one the chance of an individual inhaling the second hand chemicals from that range is next to the chance Rich Rod becomes the coach of the women's golf team. However, it is bioological and chemical fact that the organic small molecules in cig smoke imitted from the cigarette lit up from the person next to me does cause cancer.

I love how the people that support this ban are getting negged....says alot about how people view human health in this country.

Wolverine318

June 7th, 2010 at 4:56 PM ^

whatever.

I love how people support a habit that is extremely dangerous to human health. You people can keep neg bang for all care. I am will never support a horrible and selfish habit that spreads cancer to those around you. I saw what it did to my family, I will never say anything good about smoking. It is horrible and I hope it is banned through out this country.

Monocle Smile

June 7th, 2010 at 5:10 PM ^

I have +2 on a twist of a posbang-on-site overused meme. I'm getting negged every time I provide reasonable analysis, apply science or common sense, or ask relevant questions. I'm not getting my panties in a bunch over it, though, and here's why:



Monocle Smile

June 7th, 2010 at 10:52 PM ^

"inhaling smoke from a cigarette causes cancer" doesn't seem like a gross exaggeration to me. Resticting a pointless habit that affects the health of not only the one who practices but those in the vicinity doesn't really seem like an infringement on freedom to me. Pardon me if I feel like I have the right to not have carcinogens pumped into my lungs by six loiterers every time I exit a building.

What's alarming is the lack of seriousness applied to smoking. Wolverine318 is, for all his faults, right about that at least.

skunk bear

June 8th, 2010 at 12:35 AM ^

1) I'm sure it doesn't seem like an exaggeration to YOU. But, I believe the truth is that it gives you an increased risk (and a minor one at that).

2) Obviously it doesn't infringe on YOUR freedom, because you don't smoke. And I guess other people's freedom doesn't matter at all to you. You don't  want smoking kept out of enclosed places. You want it banned.

3) Believing you are actually at risk if you walk by some students having a smoke outside is just nuts. Do you have obsessive/compulsive disorder? Your lungs aren't being "pumped" full by that. What do you do at parties? Or don't you go to parties? Do you play poker? No?  What do you do when you are on the sidewalk and a car passes you? Hold your breath?

4) If everything anybody didn't like was outlawed, there would be no freedom. Having freedom only means something when you can do something somebody else doesn't like.

Monocle Smile

June 8th, 2010 at 12:44 AM ^

1) How minor? Far less minor than inhaling car exhaust that's at least ten feet from one's nose. It's not just the cancer, either. Smoking strains the heart and blood vessels, can cause stroke, deprives the body of oxygen, irritates the eyes, and prematurely ages the skin on your fingers. I'm sure you don't see it as being "pumped" into your lungs, but then again, you're not a nonsmoker who deals with a crowd of cigarettes outside of building entrances.

2) It doesn't infringe upon your freedom, either. The University has every right to ban smoking. Their property, their rules. I don't smoke at parties and if it's too smoky, my friends and I generally leave because we're on SOMEONE ELSE'S property and they have every right to smoke. I don't smoke at poker, either. You don't have to smoke to have a good time, Didn't you know that?

3) It's not about what I don't or don't like. It's about preventing the very preventable danger that is secondhand smoke. The AMA did a study in 1992 that estimated 35,000 to 40,000 deaths were caused by secondhand smoke in the early 1980s. The EPA in 1993 claimed 3000 lung cancer deaths per year were due to secondhand smoke. The WHO verified a definite link in 2002 between secondhand smoke and cancer-related deaths that, while small compared to actually smoking, was still significant.

4) Why do you make this all about me? The chief health officer of the University personally confirmed that this is what the majority of students want, and last I checked the right to smoke isn't inalienable.

How about every time you exit a building this winter I dump a bottle of water all over you. Doesn't matter how often or where. Every time. Does it kill you right away? Of course not. But it does make you more susceptible to catching a cold. Of course, I'll just say it's a minor risk and no big deal and you should just stop whining. Sound good?

skunk bear

June 8th, 2010 at 1:12 AM ^

1) All of these effects you note come from serious smoking, not passing a few smokers outside for a moment. Also I think you would find that car exhaust is far worse than cigarette smoke. Which garage would you prefer to be in, one with cigarette smokers or one with a running engine? How about a bus? Do your parents have a fireplace? Were you a boy scout? Have you ever been around a campfire? Btw, I am a non-smoker. I usually sit in non-smoking sections of restaurants. I just believe that those who are so opposed to smoking can only see it from yheir own parochial point of view.

2) Has a university-wide ban been tested? They may have the right, but are you sure? At least you admit that others have a right to smoke on their property. I was of the mistaken opinion you wanted smoking outlawed.Of course you can have a good time not smoking, but then there is that second-hand smoke again.

3) A lot of times with things like the EPA claim, you find details left out. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the 3,000 were older people who had lived with heavy smokers all their lives. Certainly they weren't university students who had simply walked by a crowd of smokers.

4) If its what everybody wants....

5) That would be assault. Claiming a smoker is assaulting you is quite a stretch.

6 Ok, do know how to take away a neg? You seem much more reasonable here.

Monocle Smile

June 8th, 2010 at 1:27 AM ^

Michigan is only one of 260 campuses nationwide with a current or pending smoking ban. Indiana and Iowa have them already.

You'd have a hard time in court claiming a water bottle dump counts as assault and battery. Car exhaust tends to diffuse more quickly than tobacco smoke and doesn't have the large airborne particles that come out of a cigarette. In tight enclosed spaces, carbon monoxide at those dosage levels is deadly, but we're talking about building entrances, primarily.

After quite literally every class last semester as I walked out of GG Brown or Dow or the FXB or the music school, there were smokers gathered nearby. That adds up to a decent amount of exposure even to people on the move. Especially when butts litter the ground.

The EPA claim is probably a bit of a stretch. But if you can't trust the WHO when it comes to health risks, I find it hard to trust anyone. There's a legitimate link and literally the only ones who say there isn't are tobacco lobbyists.

I really don't care about negs. No worries. Read my sig. I find it's better to just shut up and take them like a man. Like I said: "HATERS GONNA HATE."

skunk bear

June 8th, 2010 at 1:45 AM ^

No hate here. And if Michigan bans smoking there are still going to be times you encounter second-hand smoke. One of the reasons you encounter the crowds of smokers is that smoking is banned in the buildings. I find it hard to believe you can't find a way around it. I can.

There are many  much worse health risks out there. It seems as though people are focusing on smoking, not so much because smoking is as bad as all that, but because it is seen as something they can do something about. And so they become determined to do so.

Off to bed. G'night.

Monocle Smile

June 8th, 2010 at 1:56 AM ^

How often are you on North Campus? When there are only two or three entrances to some of the buildings, there are smokers all over the place.

I would say most of us know someone who has suffered due to smoking, and even that simple idea means smoking really is "all that. "

Smoking is IMO by far the most controllable public health risk in existence outside of Darwin Award material and it's by far the most pointless as a risk. Smoking doesn't do a damn thing that hundreds of other easy practices couldn't do.

It's not about completely wiping out secondhand smoke. It's about cutting the hell down on it and encouraging people to quit. The University wants to send the message that we are Michigan and we put our students' health first. I can't really argue with that.

maineandblue

June 7th, 2010 at 5:05 PM ^

I had a philosophy prof when I was at UM who said he thought people who never smoked a cigarette are inherently untrustworthy. He also said people who smoke pot are boring and everyone should try ecstacy, so take that for what it,s worth.

There are a ton of reasons people smoke, and have been doing so in various cultures for hundreds of years. Most things in life can be viewed in terms of risk/reward. Getting into a car, going for a run on the street, whatever. People who smoke choose the stress relief/enjoyment NOW over potential highly uncertain risks that could occur later. Sure, if you smoke long enough you'll get emphysema and cancer, but tons of smokers (and people who do all sorts of dangerous things to their bodies) live well into their 90s (George Burns, William Burroughs, heck, most of Europe smokes and drinks more than us and lives longer). Tons of people get cancer and die of random things that have nothing to do with their own behavior.  LIfe is crazy like that.

I'm not saying smoking is a good thing (I'm trying to quit myself), but people vastly overestimate the chances of getting cancer. Example:

Consider: A 51-year-old woman who smoked a pack a day for 28 years and then quit has only a 0.8 percent chance of getting lung cancer in the next decade, the study found.

Compare her to a 68-year-old man who has smoked two packs a day for 50 years and refuses to stop smoking. If he keeps puffing away, his risk of getting lung cancer in the next decade is 15 percent.

http://www.lifeclinic.com/fullpage.aspx?prid=512291&type=1

And if you think someone smoking OUTDOORS "brazingly" poses a threat to the health of anyone not standing within a few feet of them, your understanding of science and physics is highly suspect.

/end rant

Wolverine318

June 7th, 2010 at 5:27 PM ^

By next to me I meant as I am walking through the concourse someone in front of me lights up. Basic Einsteinian diffusion theory (depending upon wind direction of course) would say there is a very high probability I will get a blast of smoke in my face. Or hell, a pack of smokers sitting outside the doors of the Chemistry building during the winter leads to a nice blanket of smoke as one steps outside. If you don't see that tar and carcinogens does diffuse through tens of feet in the open air, then your understanding of basic physics is very suspect. Secondly, all it takes is one molecule of an organic carcinogen to intercalate between two bases of DNA to cause irrepairable DNA damage/mutation of gene important to cell cycle control (ie a cyclin) that can lead to cancer.

Why should I trust someone who only thinks short term in terms of risk/reward in regards to smoking? I minored in philosophy along with undergrad major in physics. I would venture a guess that ~80% of my philosophy profs were high as a kite...

Blue Durham

June 8th, 2010 at 8:37 AM ^

Secondly, all it takes is one molecule of an organic carcinogen to intercalate between two bases of DNA to cause irrepairable DNA damage/mutation of gene important to cell cycle control (ie a cyclin) that can lead to cancer.

Typically, the carcinogen needs to alkylate the DNA, leading to a single strand break. However, this is almost always repaired and doesn't lead to a cancerous cell. What is necessary is for a double strand break to occur, leading to a complete break of the DNA. This almost always leads to cell death; when it doesn't, then a cancer cell can occur.

Carcinogenesis is a much more complicated process than just intercalation - and this doesn't happen between "base pairs" but within the minor grove of DNA. This is usually associated with metabolites (diol epoxides) of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's)

I assume that you do not grill meats as (1) there is smoke involved and (2) they are loaded with PAH's

You seem to think that the incredible minute amounts of cigarette smoke can lead to cancer. If that were so, all pack-a-day smokers would be dead within months of starting the habit.

Wolfman

June 8th, 2010 at 4:06 PM ^

a very selfish person. There are a multitude of ways of allowing smokers their right without infringing on others. I don't disagree with you stance on its medical detriments; however, either make it illegal or allow for the very real fact that a large portion of the "tax paying" population still indulge in this "selfish" behavior and make necessary arrangements for them. Smoking a cigarette at half-time in a ventilated "smoke shack" will help the smoker and hurt no one. 

Bosch

June 7th, 2010 at 11:33 AM ^

I've never had an issue with the people who smoked in the designated sections.  I have, however, had a problem with people lighting up where they weren't supposed to (in the stands and in the restrooms).

Tater

June 7th, 2010 at 12:16 PM ^

It would be nice if they started allowing pass-outs again to placate the smokers.  It would be really cool for those who wanted to go to their cars and have a few beverages at halftime, too.

jvblaha

June 7th, 2010 at 12:33 PM ^

I come from a tobacco farming family and am a current student Michigan.  I do not smoke.  From our perspective, policies like this do not affect our income in the same way that an increase in tobacco tax like the one Michigan had last year does.  Many NASCAR tracks have designated ticketed sections for smokers and nonsmokers.  It works pretty well.

NomadicBlue

June 7th, 2010 at 1:02 PM ^

I'm not a smoker, but this seems a little exteme.  Its hard to imagine an entire college campus going smoke free.  I know that's the way the world is going, but it just seems like a bit much. 

Blue in Seattle

June 7th, 2010 at 5:12 PM ^

"Pfizer lands a contract with Michigan Athletics to be the exclusive supplier of Nicorette gum at all concession stands in Michigan Stadium."

 

From my experience in the Navy when it went smokeless, the nicotine addicts do not stop their addiction, they just change delivery mechanisms.

Ever spent 4 hours sitting next to a guy spitting into a cup?

ever watch one get kicked over?

at least the cigarette butts sweep up easy, and smoke generally goes up and out,

ahh, when you're outside.

well at least we're not discussing whether it's acceptable that the students throw marshmallows at the cameraman.

'cause that would just be a waste of time.

Wolfman

June 8th, 2010 at 4:01 PM ^

to build ventilated smoke shelters off the path of food carts and away from non-smokers. To not do it is silly. In this manner, you wouldn't have to inhale "a noxious cloud" of smoke or even be subjected to the litter some smokers cause. 

 

When it's realistic, smokers should be given an area that doesn't bother others. This is very doable, and should definitely be a consideration. 

Monocle Smile

June 8th, 2010 at 6:30 PM ^

Smoke shacks are definitely the best solution.

I still maintain that it would be almost as easy to get "off campus" as it would be to get to one of these smoke shacks. I doubt most people know exactly where every campus line starts and ends. Just step on someone's lawn who doesn't care. Shoot, I will donate my lawn to smokers if it's that big of a deal.