UM to Implement Campus-Wide Smoking Ban

Submitted by Geaux_Blue on

Just featured on local news (web link) - would be a voluntary ban with no enforceability (meaning campus police wouldn't have fines to implement).

First school to attempt/execute it in the state

Bucknuts is reporting Denard has already violated the ban with 6 cartons of cigarettes and 20 Cuban cigars
 
 

goblue20111

June 13th, 2011 at 10:11 AM ^

I don't have the option of being able to smoke in a resturaunt anymore thanks to the great state of Michigan.  I also can't light up at a hooka lounge, a cigar bar or a private club.  But hey, I can smoke at Greektown or MGM.  Glad to see where the priorities of the state lie.  I honestly don't have a problem with an owner saying they don't want smoking in their establishment--that's a perfectly reasonable request.  I do have a problem with the owners not having a say in the manner. 

Wolverine318

June 13th, 2011 at 7:14 PM ^

No really!!!!!!??!?!?!?! OMG!!!!

Almost every city that has enacted a smoking ban has actually seen business increase in bars and resturants. No amount of propaganda from Philip-Morris can deny the deadly public heath impact of smoking and the lies that smoking bans will cause bars to go out of business. As far as bars, I have zero sympathy for businesses that go under. It is called adaptation. If a business cannot adapt to changing market conditions, then they deserve to go under.

whatever, I will get negged by the chain smokers and the ron paul sheep in this thread.

readyourguard

June 13th, 2011 at 8:44 AM ^

I am somewhat confuzzled.....

You posted a very long response on the dangers of smoking and suggest a $13 fine is adequate.  Then you respond to your own post by asking "have we gone too far" and "if you don't like smoke, go someplace else."

Is your name John Kerry?

EDIT: Nevermind.  I've been bamboozled.  Two different posters with Lupus.

slaunius

June 13th, 2011 at 11:59 AM ^

Secondhand smoke, as generally referred to and understood in medical literature, almost always refers to inhalation that occurs in a closed environment, i.e, indoors. Doesn't apply to a ridiculous outdoor ban; the exhaust of passing cars is more dangerous by many degrees of magnitude.

Geoff

June 13th, 2011 at 10:09 AM ^

The college I work at is going to enforce a smoking ban starting next year I believe. They tried just posting signs asking people not to smoke within 50 feet of a building entrance and placed those ashtray/garbage things at the appropriate distance. No one pays attention though. All the smokers still just huddle right outside the doors to the buildings than throw their butts on the ground. On a rainy day they will actually sit inside the vestibule and smoke so they don't have to get wet. They were given a chance and failed so now they get the right taken away.

Hlprn302

June 13th, 2011 at 11:22 AM ^

writing a $13 fine to President Obama when he sneaks outside for a cig before giving his next commencement address. Even really smart people do stupid things-that applies both to smokers and people who try to outlaw minority activities they don't approve of.

JBE

June 13th, 2011 at 12:33 PM ^

No, it's the school's decision, and it's the right one, especially if it discourages a couple 18 year old students from smoking, or even smoking less. Bans such as these also have a myriad of other short and long term benefits. It's damn near a public good.

goblue20111

June 13th, 2011 at 12:37 PM ^

At this point we've moved onto the state ban, at least that was what I was getting at.  Regardless, it's not UM's responsibility to worry about "discouraging 18 year olds from smoking".  If you want to discourage employees in an effort to save on insurance, make them pay more of their insurance costs. 

JBE

June 13th, 2011 at 12:54 PM ^

It may not be the school's responsibility, but it's the right thing to do, and when large decisions regarding smoking are made the discouragement line of thinking is always a major facet. I would imagine the discouragement argument takes even more precedent in this case because it's not a city being discussed, but a college campus. The numbers do show more people quitting and trying to quit when a ban has been put in place in their area, and I'm sure UM knows this, and cares about its student population.

Wolverine318

June 13th, 2011 at 7:24 PM ^

It is UM's responsibility to insure a healthy environment for 18-22 year old kids who remain on their parent's insurance but live away from home 6 months of the year. That is the reason drinking is banned on campus and why smoking is about to be banned. 

FYI, smokers already pay higher premiums on healthy and life insurance. Since students typically don't have their own insurance, I don't think increasing premiums is going to have that much effect.