Just elected to Student Senate: Smoking Ban: Yes, limited, or no?

[libertybrewcity]

You can walk out of almost any building on campus during the day, and have to navigate around massive groups of smokers and the smoke they spew. I don't have a problem with smoking or the smoke, but many students disagree. Virginia state law says that you can't smoke within 25 feet of any public building, but that law is neither followed nor enforced.

Since the smokers clearly don't respect the air around their fellow non smokers, and the threat of a campus smoking ban is gaining momentum, the issue will likely be dealt with during the next session.

I don't agree with a school-wide ban at all. I think smokers should be able to smoke. I also don't agree with establishing smoking areas or building gazebos so smokers can have their own space. I am stuck between leaving it how it is, although some people might be unhappy breathing in second hand smoke and the health thereof, and attempting to get some rules such as not within ten of any major building (with specific buildings).

Any thoughts on a libertarian/common sense approach.

[Vessol]

Start a campus campaign that is aimed at teaching smokers not to be douchebags.

That's about all you can do unless it's outright banned.

[acptulsa]

I'd be inclined to try to get the science department to prove that secondhand smoke can't stay concentrated enough outdoors to even be the slightest issue.

[Jack Bauer]

Our university administration unilaterally decided to implement a smoking ban.

After the decision was made, they invited a few of us to discuss and debate the implementation of the ban.

The whole process was a sham! What's the point in "debating" the ban, when the decision to implement it was already taken and would not be reversed?

I was one of the people who was invited to "debate". I told it to their face in my opening statement that I think its a sham and I will not waste my time when the debate will not have any implications on the status of the ban and walked out of the circus of a "debate".

Fuck those assholes!

[RideTheDirt]

I'd be inclined to try to get the science department to prove that secondhand smoke can't stay concentrated enough outdoors to even be the slightest issue.
This

[RideTheDirt]

Our university administration unilaterally decided to implement a smoking ban.

After the decision was made, they invited a few of us to discuss and debate the implementation of the ban.

The whole process was a sham! What's the point in "debating" the ban, when the decision to implement it was already taken and would not be reversed?

I was one of the people who was invited to "debate". I told it to their face in my opening statement that I think its a sham and I will not waste my time when the debate will not have any implications on the status of the ban and walked out of the circus of a "debate".

Fuck those assholes!
Good job

[dannno]

Make sure and ban perfume, too, while you're at it. I'm allergic.

My parents jumped through so many hoops trying to avoid exposing me to second hand cigarette smoke when I was a kid due to my asthma and allergies.. only to result in me picking up cigarette smoking (1-2 cigs/day) in college.

Honestly, the perfume girls wore in class growing up my whole life was a way bigger pain in the ass for my allergies than any second hand smoke.

If you don't like second hand smoke, and you see somebody smoking a cigarette, there is nothing stopping you from staying away from them. If there are many, and the smoke is blowing around, and you get a whiff, who cares??

People make way too big of a deal about this issue, just suck it up, if you don't like it, don't walk near them.

[acptulsa]

This

A few little leaves burning in the great, big world. And will fire departments next be trapping the smoke from the structure fires they fight? God knows that's one hell of a lot more smoke, and has several far more dangerous chemicals in it.

[dannno]

Start a campus campaign that is aimed at teaching non-smokers not to be douchebags.


Fixed it for you.

[Orgoonian]

You can walk out of almost any building on campus during the day, and have to navigate around massive groups of smokers and the smoke they spew. I don't have a problem with smoking or the smoke, but many students disagree. Virginia state law says that you can't smoke within 25 feet of any public building, but that law is neither followed nor enforced.

Since the smokers clearly don't respect the air around their fellow non smokers, and the threat of a campus smoking ban is gaining momentum, the issue will likely be dealt with during the next session.

I don't agree with a school-wide ban at all. I think smokers should be able to smoke. I also don't agree with establishing smoking areas or building gazebos so smokers can have their own space. I am stuck between leaving it how it is, although some people might be unhappy breathing in second hand smoke and the health thereof, and attempting to get some rules such as not within ten of any major building (with specific buildings).

Any thoughts on a libertarian/common sense approach.

Although you say you dont agree with establishing smoking areas,i always thought that to be a fair compromise.
I smoke,and i know that my smoke could bother some people,so i try to be respectful in public.
For some crazy reason,i cannot take perfumes.I can't breathe around it.Literally.
I would imagine that my smoke would affect others the same way.

[AGRP]

Anyone else enjoy the occasional smell of smoke when someone is smoking outside?

[acptulsa]

Anyone else enjoy the occasional smell of smoke when someone is smoking outside?

Oh yeah. Especially if they're smoking briskit.

[Maximus]

They banned smoking at SDSU a couple years back because of this. It was ridiculous because the whole campus is outdoors and there are huge grass areas (the ban included grass areas). Just another way for the campus cops to hassle people.

[dannno]

Although you say you dont agree with establishing smoking areas,i always thought that to be a fair compromise.
I smoke,and i know that my smoke could bother some people,so i try to be respectful in public.
For some crazy reason,i cannot take perfumes.I can't breathe around it.Literally.
I would imagine that my smoke would affect others the same way.

So should they have "perfume only" areas as well? Fuck that shit, the girls wearing the perfume are usually hot. That was the worst part of the irony.

The answer is not establishing smoking only areas, the answer is to concentrate ash trays in certain areas so smokers naturally migrate to those areas, and it allows others to avoid those areas.

[Orgoonian]

So should they have "perfume only" areas as well? Fuck that shit, the girls wearing the perfume are usually hot. That was the worst part of the irony.

The answer is not establishing smoking only areas, the answer is to concentrate ash trays in certain areas so smokers naturally migrate to those areas, and it allows others to avoid those areas.

Fair enough.

[Krugerrand]

Although you say you dont agree with establishing smoking areas,i always thought that to be a fair compromise.
I smoke,and i know that my smoke could bother some people,so i try to be respectful in public.
For some crazy reason,i cannot take perfumes.I can't breathe around it.Literally.
I would imagine that my smoke would affect others the same way.

Agreed - what's wrong w/ having smoking areas? It's nuts that in the name of public health we force smokers to go outside in the cold/rain/sleet/snow to smoke.

[Imperial]

We have a rule on campus saying smokers have to be 25 feet away from an entrance of a building, but it is impossible to enforce. They quit trying from nearly the start.

[georgiaboy]

Anyone else enjoy the occasional smell of smoke when someone is smoking outside?

pipes & cigars yes, cigarettes no. I also love the smell of burning leaves in the fall, and campfires.

As to the issue at hand, a tolerance campaign is definitely in order.

Also, nothing wrong with non-smokers bringing spray cans of air freshener for when they step outside of the buildings. It is a free country, right?

[hugolp]

Although you say you dont agree with establishing smoking areas,i always thought that to be a fair compromise.
I smoke,and i know that my smoke could bother some people,so i try to be respectful in public.
For some crazy reason,i cannot take perfumes.I can't breathe around it.Literally.
I would imagine that my smoke would affect others the same way.

As I was reading the op, I was also wondering what was so wrong with smoking areas.

[Johnnymac]

As I walk around campus I see people walk out of their dorm entrances and immediately light up and stand at the entrance smoking.....have some respect not everyone likes the smell of carbon dioxide, rat poison, toilet cleaner ect. I would want to aim for ban but start at limiting , start by getting them out of the entrances, other then that honestly if you prefer to smoke, what ever just be respectful of others

[Guitarzan]

lol @ busybodies

[AGRP]

Would the creation of attractive smoking areas work? Gazebos?

[specsaregood]

As I was reading the op, I was also wondering what was so wrong with smoking areas.
Yup, seems like an acceptable solution to me as well.

[tremendoustie]

It's not really a libertarian issue -- since a college is generally a voluntary association on legitimately acquired property, they have a right to make the rules they want (although I guess you could make an argument that state funding compromises the situation).

I'd say just vote for whichever option you think would generally benefit members of the student body the most.

[VIDEODROME]

Allow it but install smoke alarms everywhere.

[virgil47]

The creation of "smoking areas" is akin to establishing areas for different classes or religions of people. If smoking in the great outdoors is of such major health importance then there should be respirators available when ever someone leaves a building. Forest fires, automobiles, jet aircraft, burning leaves and perfumes contribute at least as much to polution and health issues as second hand smoke does. By the way I am an exsmoker who smoker for over 35 years and yes I do indeed enjoy a whiff of smoke on occasion.

[tangent4ronpaul]

I'd be inclined to try to get the science department to prove that secondhand smoke can't stay concentrated enough outdoors to even be the slightest issue.

Bring up Japan and fallout on the US coast in your proposal... :D

How about just enforcing the rules/law that is already in place. Most colleges derive massive amounts of their budget by having "meter maids" go after expired meters, or students getting ticketed for not having a parking pass displayed the right way or parking in the wrong lot, etc. If the rule is not within 15 feet of a building, redeploy some of these revenue generators. I'm sure the school would be delighted to have a new revenue stream.

[tangent4ronpaul]

As I was reading the op, I was also wondering what was so wrong with smoking areas.

What's so wrong with free speech zones? (just to play evils advocate :D)

yeah, one problem with this is that just outside the doors offers shelter. If you want to push smokers further out, give them some shelter.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

So should they have "perfume only" areas as well? Fuck that shit, the girls wearing the perfume are usually hot. That was the worst part of the irony.

The answer is not establishing smoking only areas, the answer is to concentrate ash trays in certain areas so smokers naturally migrate to those areas, and it allows others to avoid those areas.


I bet the ashtrays were concentrated around building entrances. That's how I often see it implemented, so I wouldn't shocked if the smokers were just hanging around where the ashtrays were in this case too.

[AGRP]

The creation of "smoking areas" is akin to establishing areas for different classes or religions of people. If smoking in the great outdoors is of such major health importance then there should be respirators available when ever someone leaves a building. Forest fires, automobiles, jet aircraft, burning leaves and perfumes contribute at least as much to polution and health issues as second hand smoke does. By the way I am an exsmoker who smoker for over 35 years and yes I do indeed enjoy a whiff of smoke on occasion.

Smoking is an offensive act though.

Should we be forced to accept the act of people if they purposely rip new ones in the middle of important meetings?

I'm not advocating we fine/jail/etc people who do violate rules or that rules even be created, but there's nothing wrong with encouraging people use comfortable areas for the courtesy of others who do not appreciate the smell.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

No one has touched upon smoke being a pollutant, which brings the idea of property rights into the argument. Designating "smoking areas" is not akin to racial segregation. It is the equivelant to saying "no dumping here". The property owner's right.

[RM918]

My college used to have gazebos for smoking (People still smoked wherever they wanted) before outright banning smoking on campus because it looked good. People still smoke wherever they want.

[Romulus]

What's so wrong with free speech zones? (just to play evils advocate :D)

yeah, one problem with this is that just outside the doors offers shelter. If you want to push smokers further out, give them some shelter.

a college campus is private property though... smoking areas should be encouraged, not forced. I think its a better solution that having 10 smokers hang out in front of entrance ways.

Make a gazabo or picnic bench with ash trays and designate an area. Again, dont force them there, just encourage it out of respect for those who do not enjoy second hand smoke when entering and leaving a building.

[Carehn]

libertarian/common sense approach - - -

tell the kids on campus who complain to grow some balls.

[UtahApocalypse]

Virginia state law says that you can't smoke within 25 feet of any public building, but that law is neither followed nor enforced.


You already have your answer. Just like so many other laws that are already on the books.

[AGRP]

libertarian/common sense approach - - -

tell the kids on campus who complain to grow some balls.

The people who complain can start a fund to establish attractive smoking areas; all without the creation of any rules/laws.

Problem solved.

[Schmitto2121]

Smoking is healthier than fascism...


Btw, most universities are considered PUBLIC property, not private.

[tangent4ronpaul]

a college campus is private property though... smoking areas should be encouraged, not forced. I think its a better solution that having 10 smokers hang out in front of entrance ways.



not if it's a state school, which this ones seems to be.

[ChaosControl]

Well you already ruled out the option I'd support, campus wide ban. If they want to smoke, they can go off campus. I'm sick of smokers thinking have the right to pollute the air and cause harm to me through their second hand smoke. If they want to give themselves lung cancer, fine, but they should have to go in an out of the way place to do so and not affect anyone who doesn't want to breath that crap.

So since you ruled out that, I vote for whichever the strictest ban is you'd support.

The right to breath clean air is more important than someone's right to smoke. They aren't directly harmed by being unable to harm others with their smoke, while others are harmed by their smoking.

[Dr.3D]

Wow, people sure are getting full of the shit being propagandized by the media about second hand smoke. It's almost like the movie, Reefer Madness.

When I went to college, we could put an ash tray on the desk and smoke. What the heck is happening to society? Who the heck is pushing this anti smoking propaganda?

[specsaregood]

//

[t0rnado]

Is it is a public or private university? In a libertarian society, public property would not exist, so that is one solution to the problem morally.

You're not in any position to do anything about the ban anyways though.

[VIDEODROME]

Smoking is an offensive act though.

Should we be forced to accept the act of people if they purposely rip new ones in the middle of important meetings?

I'm not advocating we fine/jail/etc people who do violate rules or that rules even be created, but there's nothing wrong with encouraging people use comfortable areas for the courtesy of others who do not appreciate the smell.

Truly there are designated areas even for eating lunch. Or taking a shit. Is this restricting free speech or just bodily functions?

[Romulus]

How about just moving the ash trays all the way out in the parking lot. lol

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

It should be banned at university. At mine, I always have to trail behind smokers on the sidewalks, or walk through smoke entering a building, it's annoying and not only that, it can cause cancer. You wouldn't let someone sprinkle rat poison on your lunch, why would you let them do the same to your air?

[NYgs23]

When are they going to ban people from playing loud, annoying music from their cars, on buses, and everywhere else? I don't mind tobacco smoke, but I hate having to listen to other peoples' music. So perhaps they should ban that!

[Schmitto2121]

Jeeze, I had no idea there were so many statists around...

[virgil47]

Smoking is an offensive act though.

Should we be forced to accept the act of people if they purposely rip new ones in the middle of important meetings?

I'm not advocating we fine/jail/etc people who do violate rules or that rules even be created, but there's nothing wrong with encouraging people use comfortable areas for the courtesy of others who do not appreciate the smell.

Being forced to breath perfume, exhaust and such are also offensive acts and they smell bad. Perhaps we should simply ban any behaviour that can give offense to any other person. Now wouldn't that be a wonderful world?

[virgil47]

Well you already ruled out the option I'd support, campus wide ban. If they want to smoke, they can go off campus. I'm sick of smokers thinking have the right to pollute the air and cause harm to me through their second hand smoke. If they want to give themselves lung cancer, fine, but they should have to go in an out of the way place to do so and not affect anyone who doesn't want to breath that crap.

So since you ruled out that, I vote for whichever the strictest ban is you'd support.

The right to breath clean air is more important than someone's right to smoke. They aren't directly harmed by being unable to harm others with their smoke, while others are harmed by their smoking.

I must agree but are you willing to give up perfume, driving an automobile, burning leaves and any other thing that "could" offend someone else?

[heavenlyboy34]

Make sure and ban perfume, too, while you're at it. I'm allergic.

My parents jumped through so many hoops trying to avoid exposing me to second hand cigarette smoke when I was a kid due to my asthma and allergies.. only to result in me picking up cigarette smoking (1-2 cigs/day) in college.

Honestly, the perfume girls wore in class growing up my whole life was a way bigger pain in the ass for my allergies than any second hand smoke.

If you don't like second hand smoke, and you see somebody smoking a cigarette, there is nothing stopping you from staying away from them. If there are many, and the smoke is blowing around, and you get a whiff, who cares??

People make way too big of a deal about this issue, just suck it up, if you don't like it, don't walk near them.

This^^ Perfume was always much worse for me than cigs (and still is). Smoking was allowed when I was in school, and there were never any problems. In fact, smokers went out of their way to use the ashtrays since they were everywhere and blew their smoke away from other people.

[heavenlyboy34]

I must agree but are you willing to give up perfume, driving an automobile, burning leaves and any other thing that "could" offend someone else?

Or fireplaces and smokestacks or barbecues, for that matter!

I'm allergic to mesquite wood smoke-therefore it must be illegal to use it in your fireplace! /sarcasm

[AGRP]

How about just moving the ash trays all the way out in the parking lot. lol

That's what I'm getting at. Just create a comfortable area away from heavily populated areas and they can even be labeled "smoking area." Most smokers will naturally go there. No need for rules.

[Jim Casey]

Forces.org has a lot of good pro-smoking information.

[VIDEODROME]

Okay this is just concerning this one property right? Not other people's property?

Shouldn't they have plenty of leeway in setting standards for something simple like this? But oh no people freakout thinking it's infringing on people rights and start yelling Statist.

It seems like some people are making this debate into something bigger then it really is.

[Dr.3D]

Being forced to breath perfume, exhaust and such are also offensive acts and they smell bad. Perhaps we should simply ban any behaviour that can give offense to any other person. Now wouldn't that be a wonderful world?

Ain't democracy a wonderful thing? As long as the majority doesn't like something, then it will be banned. How would these same people feel if the majority smoked? (Oh yeah.... it was sort of that way back in the '50s. A lot more people smoked back then.)

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Just pick up chewing and spit all over the place.

[Dr.3D]

Just pick up chewing and spit all over the place.

We had a guy doing that in the shop where I worked. They finally made him hang a box of cat litter under his chin so he could spit in that.

[specsaregood]

How about just moving the ash trays all the way out in the parking lot. lol

On a lot of school campuses you can't smoke in your car either.

[Johnnymac]

Wow, people sure are getting full of the shit being propagandized by the media about second hand smoke. It's almost like the movie, Reefer Madness.

When I went to college, we could put an ash tray on the desk and smoke. What the heck is happening to society? Who the heck is pushing this anti smoking propaganda?


I must agree but are you willing to give up perfume, driving an automobile, burning leaves and any other thing that "could" offend someone else?

to the first one, I don't care if people smoke, if they want to inhale that bullshit to calm there senses or whatever so be it, if we were still way back in the day where cigarettes were not polluted chemicals and additives, i wouldn't care about the 2nd hand. nowadays where cigarettes are polluted with that bullshit one person is okay but a bunch of people smoking in one area is too much and no one wants it which is why people are pushing for restrictions and bans.

to the second, perfume?, burning leaves?, cars do give off carbon monoxide like cigarettes do but not nearly as much as they used to back in the day. but still all this talk about oh if you want some to give up smoking you should give up perfume and ....burning leaves? now if you want to smoke so be it but it should not be all in one place and if you want to smoke it should be in a place that is away from the general public, so they are not hurt by the effects of carbon monoxide.

[Romulus]

On a lot of school campuses you can't smoke in your car either.

That's pretty ridiculous. Your car is your own property.

[AGRP]

Just pick up chewing and spit all over the place.


We had a guy doing that in the shop where I worked. They finally made him hang a box of cat litter under his chin so he could spit in that.

Statists! :)

[low preference guy]

That's pretty ridiculous. Your car is your own property.

I also think it's absolutely ridiculous, but not for the reason you state. Consider that your car, which is your property, is in someone else's property. The parking lot of a private college is not your property most of the time.

[AGRP]

Truly there are designated areas even for eating lunch. Or taking a shit. Is this restricting free speech or just bodily functions?


Okay this is just concerning this one property right? Not other people's property?

Shouldn't they have plenty of leeway in setting standards for something simple like this? But oh no people freakout thinking it's infringing on people rights and start yelling Statist.

It seems like some people are making this debate into something bigger then it really is.

I think you agree with the my statement?

I guess it's a part of any group of people. It's cool to be "hardcore" and throw the intangibles such as manners, reason, and consideration out window.

Remind me to rent a 1,000,000 watt car stereo system and blast it just outside of my college's library while not expecting people to do something about it (which still can be done without a law or ordnance).

[Romulus]

I also think it's absolutely ridiculous, but not for the reason you state. Consider that your car, which is your property, is in someone else's property. The parking lot of a private college is not your property most of the time.

Agreed, unless its a state college, in which they really have no right to ban smoking anywhere.

[Slutter McGee]

I don't know how many times I have held a smoke behind my back as somebody walked by, especially kids, so as not to incovienence them, only to have an adult fake a coughing fit and glare at me.

Non-smokers piss me off.

Slutter McGee

[ChaosControl]

I must agree but are you willing to give up perfume, driving an automobile, burning leaves and any other thing that "could" offend someone else?

Some schools and work places do ban perfume. That is up to the school or a work place. Usually they are banned due to someone's allergies or the possibility of such.
But this isn't about merely offense. Smoke is a pollutant that can cause harm to anyone though. X person's "freedom" to smoke causes a harm to Y person when they breath it, thus Y person's freedom to breath clean air wins out. Your freedoms/rights only extent to the point until they cause harm to someone else.

[ChaosControl]

Agreed, unless its a state college, in which they really have no right to ban smoking anywhere.

Yes they do, the public has the right to ban any activity in a public area. It is only a private area that the public has no right to have a say on what is and isn't allowed, that is under the authority of the one who controls that private area.

[Romulus]

Yes they do, the public has the right to ban any activity in a public area. It is only a private area that the public has no right to have a say on what is and isn't allowed, that is under the authority of the one who controls that private area.

Yes I suppose so... but its still ridiculous.. force through law doesn't work, they ought to just move the ash trays away from the doors. What a stupid place to put them.

[AGRP]

Yes I suppose so... but its still ridiculous.. force through law doesn't work, they ought to just move the ash trays away from the doors. What a stupid place to put them.



A "smoke door" with an area to smoke just outside of it?

Am I the only one who is still thinking of solutions to the OP's problem? :)

[eduardo89]

ban smoking in your own home, not on public property

[dannno]

Bring up Japan and fallout on the US coast in your proposal... :D

How about just enforcing the rules/law that is already in place. Most colleges derive massive amounts of their budget by having "meter maids" go after expired meters, or students getting ticketed for not having a parking pass displayed the right way or parking in the wrong lot, etc. If the rule is not within 15 feet of a building, redeploy some of these revenue generators. I'm sure the school would be delighted to have a new revenue stream.

That wouldn't work.. the only reason they can get away with ticketing cars is because every car as a license plate and a VIN number.. if you started ticketing smokers, they would just run off... and I don't think they should use violence against smokers.

[dannno]

But this isn't about merely offense. Smoke is a pollutant that can cause harm to anyone though. X person's "freedom" to smoke causes a harm to Y person when they breath it, thus Y person's freedom to breath clean air wins out. Your freedoms/rights only extent to the point until they cause harm to someone else.

Oh bologna.

I guess we should go around the world arresting indigenous people for having campfires.

[dannno]

I don't know how many times I have held a smoke behind my back as somebody walked by, especially kids, so as not to incovienence them, only to have an adult fake a coughing fit and glare at me.

Non-smokers piss me off.

Slutter McGee

Another thing we agree on..

[MelissaWV]

I didn't read all eight pages, but I read the first and last.

The first solution that comes to mind is: ask them if they wouldn't mind smoking elsewhere.

Some people are likely smoking near the doors because A) that's where the ashtrays are (funny how that works, eh?), B) they're avoiding the elements, or C) they're avoiding a long walk to another area and then back again. There might be a good reason to smoke close to the building. There might not; maybe they're just assholes. I don't get the assumption that they're just flippant I-don't-care-I-want-you-dead smoker jackasses. Most smokers don't puff right in your face, or try to offend. Most non-smokers don't feel a need to be pompous douchebags, and just avoid the smoke.

[nobody's_hero]

It's gonna be hell to enforce it.

My college administration complained because they were finding cigarette butts around main entrances, so they took away all the ash cans. So now, there's 10 times as many cigarette butts around the entrances.

Now I'm not a fan of the littering and I can see where the college had a legitimate complaint, and I've even confronted other people for not properly disposing of their cigarette butts in ash cans when they were standing 10 feet away from one, but this move to take away ash cans thinking it would dissuade people from smoking was pretty damned stupid on the college's part.

For the most part, though, they reached a compromise; we have smoking areas at secondary entrances to buildings, but they still haven't returned many of the ash cans.

Which gives me an idea:

Does anyone make Ron Paul 2012 ash cans? :p

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I don't like the smell of shit when I drive in the country. Let's ban farming...

[Legend1104]

This depends on whether it is a private university or a government supported one. If it is private then the university has all the right to ban anything it wants. If it is gov. supported then I would have a bit more of a problem.

[AFPVet]

We have smoking huts at my university.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I don't like the smell of shit when I drive in the country. Let's ban farming...

because taking a shit and smoking are the same thing. wtf.

[dannno]

because taking a shit and smoking are the same thing. wtf.

Smelling cow shit and smelling smoke does the same amount of damage to an individual, which is zero.

[whoisjohngalt]

I think you should vote in favor of the smoking ban, but only so long as its tied to a measure to stop fat people from eating on campus. When I see fat people eating (especially if mayonnaise is involved) I can't help but vomit. This constant vomiting does irreparable damage to my stomach and esophagus. Obviously, not being able to hold down any food because of all the fat people eating around me is going to lead to a very early death. My right to not vomit is way more important than their right to eat what they want in public. Thanks to them, I am a full scale bulimic. Right now I'm in Houston, the fattest city in America, and I have to say that I haven't been able to hold food down for the last three days due to all the fatties gorging themselves. We need to come together and push for a full scale ban. Maybe we can stop them from ever eating in public again if we work hard enough!

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Smelling cow shit and smelling smoke does the same amount of damage to an individual, which is zero.

it's not about what kind of damage it does to a person. Throwing trash on the ground doesn't do damage to people either. However, if I have a choice on how to run my business, school, private property, or public property through voting, I choose to maintain the cleanliness of it by not allowing litter pollution or cigarette smoke pollution. Not because of potential harm, but because it's fucking gross and I shouldn't have to deal with it. Smoking is a choice. Farming only occurs in low population density areas and is essential to the preservation of the human race. If you don't like smelling cow shit, move, or don't be a farmer.

This is not a health issue. It is a private property issue or in the case of public property the enforcement of any laws. If smokers don't like the laws, change them.


Everyone likes to paraphrase Bill Hicks, but no one seems to realize he quit smoking before he died.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Ain't democracy a wonderful thing? As long as the majority doesn't like something, then it will be banned. How would these same people feel if the majority smoked? (Oh yeah.... it was sort of that way back in the '50s. A lot more people smoked back then.)

Freedom is not about putting other people's health at risk for your selfish acts. I should have the freedom to breathe clean air as I travel through public property and private property if that's their policy.

[whoisjohngalt]

Warrior_of_Freedom and Nate-ForLiberty are obviously among the fatties killing me with their public eating. Why are you people all so inconsiderate of others health?

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Warrior_of_Freedom and Nate-ForLiberty are obviously among the fatties killing me with their public eating. Why are you people all so inconsiderate of others health?

I'm not even sure what that means. LOL!

[Nate-ForLiberty]

To clarify, the Federal government has no authority to make smoking laws (that includes taxation). The states and cities do, but I'd prefer that they didn't. Again, this should be decided by each individual owner. Not sure what the confusion is here. How is this position fascist?

[whoisjohngalt]

Nate, read my previous post in the thread (#81), it is all explained in painstaking detail there.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Nate, read my previous post in the thread (#81), it is all explained in painstaking detail there.

that is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever read. sorry dude.

[whoisjohngalt]

Why is it one of the dumbest arguments you've ever read? You can't just saying that without refuting it. My life is less important than others or something?

[BarryDonegan]

You can walk out of almost any building on campus during the day, and have to navigate around massive groups of smokers and the smoke they spew. I don't have a problem with smoking or the smoke, but many students disagree. Virginia state law says that you can't smoke within 25 feet of any public building, but that law is neither followed nor enforced.

Since the smokers clearly don't respect the air around their fellow non smokers, and the threat of a campus smoking ban is gaining momentum, the issue will likely be dealt with during the next session.

I don't agree with a school-wide ban at all. I think smokers should be able to smoke. I also don't agree with establishing smoking areas or building gazebos so smokers can have their own space. I am stuck between leaving it how it is, although some people might be unhappy breathing in second hand smoke and the health thereof, and attempting to get some rules such as not within ten of any major building (with specific buildings).

Any thoughts on a libertarian/common sense approach.

It's pretty reasonable to have a building-wide policy not to allow smoking in enclosed spaces as it clearly is physically uncomfortable. While it is a government building, a government building is granted the same legal property rights as any other controller of the premises, and this is well within normal executive authority such a building should have over its insides given that cigarettes are also open flames, etc.

However, outdoors is another issue entirely. And, on principle, I'd rather see there be no such ban at all, but that is unlikely to be one of the options that could be within the realm of political possibility.

Ultimately, private property rights give the university, whether publicly funded or not, the authority to dictate what can or can't go on on their property. Considering that is existing law, sidestepping it could be an affront to private property rights as well in some cases, so until someone passes a law that a government corporate entity can't control private property, then it is what it is. As a part of the school's elected leadership, you can shape policy to minimize the institutional restrictions that are placed on people that attend the university.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Why is it one of the dumbest arguments you've ever read? You can't just saying that without refuting it. My life is less important than others or something?

because instead of using common sense and the Constitution as a basis for an argument, you are making up some ridiculous and highly improbably scenario in order to justify your pet cause.

[CzargwaR]

If you want to add some science to this Second Hand Smoke debate visit this link and glace through the chapters.
http://www.iarc.fr/en/publications/pdfs-online/prev/handbook13/index.php

[whoisjohngalt]

Actually, it's called satire. No one called Jonathan Swift outrageous when he wrote a Modest Proposal, unless they were too stupid to realize that what they were reading was not to be taken seriously. Hyperbole is an effective tool when writing satire, as it exposes the stupidity of the argument being made. While my situation, which isn't completely theoretical, (my stepmom is severely obese and a food addict and it caused serious weight issues for me in high school/i have acid reflux and actually often throw up when exposed to mayonaise or similar foods) is absurd, so are the claims that people smoking outside pollute the air, negatively affect anyone's health, or should be stopped because it is offensive.

I'm proud of my pet cause being Liberty. Liberty doesn't need to be justified either.

[whoisjohngalt]

CzargwaR, I glanced through the chapters and read through number 2 pretty extensively. Couldn't find anything about outdoor second hand smoke. I then did my own research on Google, which shows that there hasn't been much evidence either way concerning the effects of exposure to SHS outdoors, but it is quite obvious that the exposure to SHS is greatly reduced. The one study I saw suggesting that it might be of concern, exposed the test subjects to SHS for six hours. I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that catching a little bit of SHS for a brief moment is the least bit potentially harmful to one's health lacks the ability to think rationally. I'm sorry it offends you guys, but as supposed lovers of liberty it is your duty to defend the offensive.

Lastly there is certainly no right to breathe clean air. The air that you own, that which is over your property, you have a right to keep free of pollutants. Outside of that you guys are taking a very statist position. I don't get how this is up for debate.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Actually, it's called satire. No one called Jonathan Swift outrageous when he wrote a Modest Proposal, unless they were too stupid to realize that what they were reading was not to be taken seriously. Hyperbole is an effective tool when writing satire, as it exposes the stupidity of the argument being made. While my situation, which isn't completely theoretical, (my stepmom is severely obese and a food addict and it caused serious weight issues for me in high school/i have acid reflux and actually often throw up when exposed to mayonaise or similar foods) is absurd, so are the claims that people smoking outside pollute the air, negatively affect anyone's health, or should be stopped because it is offensive.

I'm proud of my pet cause being Liberty. Liberty doesn't need to be justified either.

Telling a property owner that they can't ban smoking on their property isn't Liberty. It is tyranny.

I'm sorry you feel like using force now against others will somehow makeup for pain you went through then.

[newbitech]

No, do not vote for a smoking ban if you are concerned about people's health. The worst that can happen to someone from inhaling what little bit of second hand smoke they are currently inhaling now is maybe a slight and very temporary allergic reaction (less than you get from inhaling pollen from the trees). On the other hand, a stressed out smoker at university before finals might really need that cigarette or two to get them through the day without snapping and face planting someone in to a no smoking sign.

If you are gonna ban smoking, you may as well just ask those kids to come to school with their head in a vice, and keep ignoring the pollen and fungus you are inhaling from the schools moldy a/c system and mother nature procreating.

[newbitech]

Telling a property owner that they can't ban smoking isn't Liberty. It is tyranny.

if its up to the property owner, then why is this person posting a thread talking about how its going to committee or whatever?

[TNforPaul45]

People who want to ban a plant should be banned.


Just sayin'.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

if its up to the property owner, then why is this person posting a thread talking about how its going to committee or whatever?

This thread was started about a public smoking ban at a state run university. It apparently is a state law that is up for debate, or which is not being enforced. However, the "pro-smokers"/"anti-smoking ban" seem to be on the extreme side of things and not even realize it. They are saying that no one should be allowed to ban smoking anywhere at anytime (whether the property is public or private). This is wrong. A state ban on smoking (or in the specific case raised in this thread, within 25 feet of a building entrance or something), while being perfectly legal (depending on the State's Constitution), is not necessarily the way I would approach the conflict between smokers and non-smokers. However, it is a state run school and therefore, if you want to regulate what the rules are there, you must use the state legislative process. Another solution to fix this is to not have state run schools. That would not violate anyone's Liberty.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Unbelievable how we are still ignorant on the issue of property rights here.

[whoisjohngalt]

Thanks, newbitech. I get the impression Nate hasn't really been paying attention to the thread. No one is arguing that someone can't ban smoking on their private property. We still were not told whether it was a public or private university. On public property it should clearly be out of the question, but if its a private university they do have the right to ban it but its extremely cruel.

The good news is that as someone who attended a private school that implemented a smoking ban in my fifth year, I know how completely ineffective the ban is. My school had 5k kids, an extremely small campus, is one of the richest schools in the country, and has its own large, private police force and still had almost 0 success at enforcing the ban. It changes nothing. I thought people on this forum were enlightened enough to understand that trying to implement and enforce laws that don't accomplish their purpose is bad because they are a large expense with no results. You have no claim to people smoking around you outside being a violation of your rights, and thus those of you in favor of the ban should mind your own fucking business like a good libertarian.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Thanks, newbitech. I get the impression Nate hasn't really been paying attention to the thread. No one is arguing that someone can't ban smoking on their private property. We still were not told whether it was a public or private university. On public property it should clearly be out of the question, but if its a private university they do have the right to ban it but its extremely cruel.

The good news is that as someone who attended a private school that implemented a smoking ban in my fifth year, I know how completely ineffective the ban is. My school had 5k kids, an extremely small campus, is one of the richest schools in the country, and has its own large, private police force and still had almost 0 success at enforcing the ban. It changes nothing. I thought people on this forum were enlightened enough to understand that trying to implement and enforce laws that don't accomplish their purpose is bad because they are a large expense with no results. You have no claim to people smoking around you outside being a violation of your rights, and thus those of you in favor of the ban should mind your own fucking business like a good libertarian.

:rolleyes: I have been paying attention. I've read the thread. I don't think the pro-smokers are aware of how vehemently and irrationally they defend their position.

I'll say it again....

If it's a state run school, and the State Constitution allows this type of law, then a public smoking ban is legal. If the people in that state don't like that law they can change it. The better choice would be to not have publicly run schools. Smoking bans are not evil. They allow whoever is running the campus to keep it clean. Just like some places will not serve you if you don't have a shirt or shoes.

Again, just to make sure you understand me,...

the problem is the state is running the school and that it is not private. That's it. This is about property rights, not smoking.

[dannno]

The school can make any rule they want to, they can make a rule that you can't eat or drink unless you are in the food court. That doesn't mean they should.. especially if it is a public school. I understand if it is a private school and they are doing it for religious reasons.

[whoisjohngalt]

I'm going to buy a well established, prestigious university and ban laughter, smiles, lollipops, having fun, dancing, and singing. I will place police all over campus to write tickets with massive fines for all offenders. It will all be kosher being private property, right? When did something being legal become the standard of whether it is acceptable, morally sound, or reason not to fight against its absurdity?

Pretty sure the Tea Act/tea tax was legal so I guess the Boston Tea Party was equivalent to those nasty, reprehensible smokers lighting up in the face of a perfectly legal ban. Damn those evil Tea Partiers.

[low preference guy]

I'm going to buy a well established, prestigious university and ban laughter, smiles, lollipops, having fun, dancing, and singing. I will place police all over campus to write tickets with massive fines for all offenders. It will all be kosher being private property, right? When did something being legal become the standard of whether it is acceptable, morally sound, or reason not to fight against its absurdity?

No one here says doing the things you mention are morally sound, but they should obviously be legal.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I'm going to buy a well established, prestigious university and ban laughter, smiles, lollipops, having fun, dancing, and singing. I will place police all over campus to write tickets with massive fines for all offenders. It will all be kosher being private property, right? When did something being legal become the standard of whether it is acceptable, morally sound, or reason not to fight against its absurdity?

Pretty sure the Tea Act/tea tax was legal so I guess the Boston Tea Party was equivalent to those nasty, reprehensible smokers lighting up in the face of a perfectly legal ban. Damn those evil Tea Partiers.

replace the word "legal" with the word "Constitutional".

[dannno]

replace the word "Constitutional" with "Your mom"


































:eek:

[Nate-ForLiberty]

replace the word "Constitutional" with "Your mom"


































:eek:

/thread

[MelissaWV]

This thread was started about a public smoking ban at a state run university. It apparently is a state law that is up for debate, or which is not being enforced. However, the "pro-smokers"/"anti-smoking ban" seem to be on the extreme side of things and not even realize it. They are saying that no one should be allowed to ban smoking anywhere at anytime (whether the property is public or private). This is wrong. A state ban on smoking (or in the specific case raised in this thread, within 25 feet of a building entrance or something), while being perfectly legal (depending on the State's Constitution), is not necessarily the way I would approach the conflict between smokers and non-smokers. However, it is a state run school and therefore, if you want to regulate what the rules are there, you must use the state legislative process. Another solution to fix this is to not have state run schools. That would not violate anyone's Liberty.

Your points have been mentioned (in particular the one about state-run schools not needing to exist). A private institution, which is beholden only to those it does business with and not taxpayers/Government, should have every right to ban smoking... or, for that matter, cow manure, red shirts, and Mel Brooks movies. If we're talking only in theory, though, banning smoking is silly. Coming up with a better compromise, which might include a more intelligent place to put ashtrays, or even just asking your peers not to smoke right outside the doors, seems desirable.

A Student Senate is a good place to decide and debate the merits of all this, and since the OP is a member of such, my advice would be that a ban would require a good reason for it. It would also require that other substances that cause similar distress be nominated for banishment.