Colleges tell smokers, 'You're not welcome here'
(CNN) -- This summer, a group of University of Kentucky students and staff has been patrolling campus grounds -- scouting out any student, employee or visitor lighting a cigarette.Now, here's an interesting question. Let's say I started at the University of Massachusetts in September of Year 1 as a Freshman. I'm a smoker. In January of Year 2, the school enacts a 100% Smoke Free campus rule. Do they grandfather all smokers until the last graduates? Or do the remaining smokers find themselves SOL, tough rocks, if you want a cigarette you have to go down to the street to have one?
Unlike hall monitors who cite students for bad behavior, the Tobacco-free Take Action! volunteers approach smokers, respectfully ask them to dispose of the cigarette and provide information about quit-smoking resources available on campus.
First off, have they managed to rid the schools of illicit drug use? I'd think they'd want to work on that before they start harassing smokers, but then again, what the hell do I know? Heck, why not go to a dry campus, too? There's plenty of evidence that drinking alcohol is bad for your health - and binge drinking is the worst, as well as being prevalent on college campuses.
Second, how does it work in a dorm room? Shouldn't that be considered your "castle" when on campus? Assuming that you're in a single or have roommates that smoke, shouldn't you be allowed to indulge in a perfectly legal substance in the privacy of your own room? If you're 21 you can drink all the beer, whiskey, and Bacardi 151 you want, but you can't light up a single Camel? Does that make any sense to anyone?
Lastly, the law of unintended consequences is going to bite folks hard on the ass. State governments are already feeling the squeeze as tax revenues decline with cigarette sales. Surprise! Force people into quitting, they buy less cigarettes, you make less in taxes. DUH! As these efforts become more and more successful, fewer and fewer people smoke, less and less revenue comes in. Eventually smoking will die out, and then big nanny government - and education - will need to find another boogeyman to go after.
Just wait - Prohibition II (Electric Boogaloo) is going to be just as much fun as the first one!
That is all.
15 comments:
They tried that a few years back at Akron U. Once, when the Nanny Mob showed up as we were in a Designated Smoking Area those of us who smoke just stepped onto the Sidewalk and informed the Yahoos that we were now on the City of Akron Property (since it's an Open Campus), and we told them to F.O. Then a Campus Cop swung by, and I saw it was a friend of mine. I leaned into the window, told him what was happening, and he proceeded to get out of the Cruiser and light up one of my Marlboros. Then he told the Nannys to leave us alone, or else.
Didn't have anymore problems while I was there.
How are these pests not getting their teeth punched down their throat?
"How are these pests not getting their teeth punched down their throat?"
It is Kentucky. We don't react kindly to being messed with and we're friends of the tobacco farmer. On the other hand we have enough of the South in us to be polite and not just outright beat anyone up.
Basically we sit and wait, there are safe places for nannies at the college campuses, Covington, and Louisville, but not much else. Sooner or later one of them will need reminded that the rest of the state is a "mind-your-own-business" zone.
Prohibition II is already underway, Jay.
And it always amazes me when students at UK talk about the evils of tobacco when most of the buildings they study in were built from tobacco money in one form or another.
If you assume that the undergrad student population is evenly distributed by age (which it's not...it overwhelmingly tilts toward freshmen, thanks to dropout rates), then approximately 75% of the population is too young to legally purchase or consume alcohol anywhere in the United States. And yet there are few buildings on any American college campus where alcohol is not _regularly_ consumed.
Within epsilon of 100% of college students are old enough to purchase and consume cigarettes. And yet, it's much harder to find a place where a student is allowed to smoke (legally) than one where he is allowed to drink (illegally).
"Second, how does it work in a dorm room? Shouldn't that be considered your "castle" when on campus? Assuming that you're in a single or have roommates that smoke, shouldn't you be allowed to indulge in a perfectly legal substance in the privacy of your own room? If you're 21 you can drink all the beer, whiskey, and Bacardi 151 you want, but you can't light up a single Camel? Does that make any sense to anyone?"
Yes, because unlike alcohol, indoor smoking causes property damage. If I moved into a dorm room and it smelled like smoke, I'd demand a different one. If smoke from down the hall came in to my room, I'd be in the right complaining about it.
Indoor smoking bans aren't a smoking issue, they're a property rights issue. I think banning smoking outdoors makes much less sense.
The university from which I finally escaped in '09 went tobacco free sometime this year.
Not smoke free. Tobacco free. This measure isn't about protecting people from other peoples' cigarette smoke--it's about control and telling other adults what to do. (It isn't like the people who dip or chew were spitting nasty globs of tobacco everywhere. I was at that campus for years and didn't see any problems with that.)
That's just one of many reasons why all the "Please send us money" crap from them goes directly into the trash can from the mailbox. Screw 'em.
Zeeke,
I would wager that property damage occurring as a result of alcohol consumption *VASTLY* outstrips the property damage occurring as a result of tobacco use...
As far as the smell? I suppose you have a point - that is if you can smell the smoke over the three month old socks and ancient pizza boxes... ;)
So, I lived in a substance free dorm for 3 years in college, and I realize that it was just the dorm for the people Smart Enough To Not Get CAUGHT.
The difference is the property damage is inherent to smoking, as opposed to idiots using the effects as an excuse for damaging property. Drunk *people* break stuff. Smoke itself smells bad and the smell gets trapped in things and the tar stains things.
Also, I'd argue that the fire risk is more inherent to smoking than the property damage risk is inherent to alcohol consumption. Most dorms ban open flame in general.
Drugs are okay, smoking is bad... got it... sigh... So what happens when some sucka lights up a joint???
So, like NFO said, lemme get this staight.
If I light up a Camel I'm a perv.
But if it's fat one I'm cool?
The dorm room is one thing. You could argue that the student is 'renting' it and thus has to abide by certain strictures. You don't technically own it.
That being said, I find it hilarious no legislator has ever gone the full monty and tried to ban tobacco use outright. Instead we get these silly little games (You can only smoke under your bed, with the lights out, after 11pm!).
III.
Don't forget the Current "War on Civil Rights" aka "War on Some Drugs".
Logic is not the strong suite of our legislative bodies, nor is a tight grasp of reality
Yeah, I can see why smoking is banned in the dorms. Especially since at my school, literally every dorm room has a smoke detector. If even one of those goes off, the fire alarm for the dorm building goes off and EVERYONE has to evacuate.
But yeah, I get sick if I'm in a room with smoke or even smells of smoke long enough, and I would be pretty damn unhappy if the dorm room I was assigned (which at my school is very difficult to change because our dorms are crowded every year now) smelled of smoke because the previous guy smoked all the time.
Now, outside? Makes less sense. Our school is technically a smoke free campus but isn't really anal about it, since we have city roads running through it, and you can smoke on those any time. They even have convenient signs and ashtrays for it...
Post a Comment