Tobacco free college campi

[Saen]

A new phenomena is sweeping my university. Tobacco free posters, sidewalk plagues, and fliers are everywhere. Apparently as of this semester FSU is tobacco free. These signs also advertise "free" consoling if you're trying to quit.

When I see all of this crap my first thought is just how much does all of this campaigning cost? On top of the university paying for all of these signs, it has to hire "quitting consolers" and has to pay and distract campus police with chasing people who still smoke on campus. As a nonsmoker these are my immediate thoughts.

Now what does banning smoking on campus actually accomplish? Nothing, I mean this is such an obvious waste of time and resources. This begs the question who or what organization is pocketing from selling all of this "tobacco free" propaganda to my university?

[Camarohusky]

At 1/16/14 12:40 PM, Saen wrote: When I see all of this crap my first thought is just how much does all of this campaigning cost?

I'll get to this with the last point.

On top of the university paying for all of these signs, it has to hire "quitting consolers"

My guess is the counselors are either already on staff, and merely adding such duties to their own. A more likely possibility is that grad students from the medical school, or the school of nursing, or perhaps another more sociology based school, will be the counselors. On a large campus with a wide array of schools, there is likely a large pool of qualified students willing to do the work for a TA level stipend, credit, or just for experience.

and has to pay and distract campus police with chasing people who still smoke on campus.

Most likely the campus police will treat smoking the same way they treat speeding on campus. If they see it, they'll enforce it, but otherwise they aren't actuvely seeking it out.

Now what does banning smoking on campus actually accomplish? Nothing, I mean this is such an obvious waste of time and resources. This begs the question who or what organization is pocketing from selling all of this "tobacco free" propaganda to my university?

On the outside it seems like a health issue, but it's not. Its an image issue and a cleanliness issue. FSU doesn't want to have parts of their campus essentially rendered off limits to those who do not smoke. (because, we all know that when a place becomes a smoking hang out, those who don't smoke often avoid the stench and smoke.) And, perhaps a bigger issue, tying into the cost, is new students. Less than 20% of Americans smoke (and my guess is that the number among college students and potential college students is even lower). Allowing those 20% to use the campus to smoke could scare away non smokers from enrolling. If even just 10 students choose not to enroll because of a bad image they get from the smokers, that could mean anywhere from $240K to $1.6 million in lost gross income (based on 4 years times a minimum of $6k a year, to a max of $40K). The cost of a few fliers, and even some counselors and extra police officers (worst case scenario) pales in comparion to even the lowest estimate.

[NeonSpider]

I would say it's pretty asinine. As a non-smoker who has no problem with polite smokers, I don't see why designated smoking areas wouldn't suffice.

Personally I don't care if someone smokes a cigarette outside though as long as they aren't being rude about it (intentionally blowing it in people's faces/etc)

It's more some "righteousness brigade" at work I think. You know -- the people who force a cough and pretend they can't breathe if someone is smoking a cigarette 20 feet away from them.

[Saen]

At 1/16/14 12:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
On the outside it seems like a health issue, but it's not. Its an image issue and a cleanliness issue. FSU doesn't want to have parts of their campus essentially rendered off limits to those who do not smoke. (because, we all know that when a place becomes a smoking hang out, those who don't smoke often avoid the stench and smoke.) And, perhaps a bigger issue, tying into the cost, is new students. Less than 20% of Americans smoke (and my guess is that the number among college students and potential college students is even lower). Allowing those 20% to use the campus to smoke could scare away non smokers from enrolling. If even just 10 students choose not to enroll because of a bad image they get from the smokers, that could mean anywhere from $240K to $1.6 million in lost gross income (based on 4 years times a minimum of $6k a year, to a max of $40K). The cost of a few fliers, and even some counselors and extra police officers (worst case scenario) pales in comparion to even the lowest estimate.

Just to educate you dude a university isn't a theme park, there aren't any designated smoking areas. There are non-smoking areas which include every building on campus.

Your ideas pale in comparison to the amount of applying smoking students they'll lose in enrollment once they learn it's a smoke free campus. Students not enrolling because they'll get a "bad image" from smokers or even more hilarious "scared away" by smokers?

It is truly incredible how far you reach up into your ass to pull out that kind of shit. I had to stop drinking my coffee and laugh hard at this shit oh my fucking god.

[Saen]

What you could have argued for is that smoking is a significant source of pollution in the form of cigarette butts. Smokers in America hardly ever dispose of their cigarettes properly and seeing those used fags along the road and sidewalk is disgusting and sad.

However, banning smoking on campus and removing trash cans with ash trays is not going to solve this problem, but will either make it worse or change nothing. What will solve the pollution problem is imposing a $50-100 fine on smokers who flick their butts on the ground, which may be enforced by any campus officer in the area.

[Feoric]

At 1/16/14 01:18 PM, Saen wrote: Your ideas pale in comparison to the amount of applying smoking students they'll lose in enrollment once they learn it's a smoke free campus. Students not enrolling because they'll get a "bad image" from smokers or even more hilarious "scared away" by smokers?

If you're putting your nicotine addiction ahead of your education then chances are you probably shouldn't be in college to begin with.

[Saen]

At 1/16/14 03:03 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 1/16/14 01:18 PM, Saen wrote: Your ideas pale in comparison to the amount of applying smoking students they'll lose in enrollment once they learn it's a smoke free campus. Students not enrolling because they'll get a "bad image" from smokers or even more hilarious "scared away" by smokers?

If you're putting your nicotine addiction ahead of your education then chances are you probably shouldn't be in college to begin with.

Yeah nice job smoke shaming people, treating smokers like they're scum of the earth. I guess professors that smoke should just pack up their research and leave huh? Fuck you dude self righteous piece of shit.

[Entice]

It's just silly to think that this will make a significant financial difference either way. Not choosing a university because it's not smoke free? Wasted money on paper flyers? Come on.

I would say switch to an e-cig but those have been added to some smoking bans recently, so who knows.
The complaining won't stop unless everything containing nicotine is banned or absent from the public eye.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/16/14 01:18 PM, Saen wrote: Just to educate you dude a university isn't a theme park, there aren't any designated smoking areas. There are non-smoking areas which include every building on campus.

I was at a University where smoking was allowed and then banned (just as yours is now) when you were learning to read. I know EXACTLY what I am talking about. At my campus there were areas (de facto, not de jure) where the smokers would congregate, and guess what? The other 30,000 students avoided those areas as much as possible. They didn't want to have to walk through a stinky clod to get to class. They didn't want to i nhale the nastiness and cough just because they had to go near the area.

The smoking areas were a stain on the otherwise beautiful campus.

Your ideas pale in comparison to the amount of applying smoking students they'll lose in enrollment once they learn it's a smoke free campus. Students not enrolling because they'll get a "bad image" from smokers or even more hilarious "scared away" by smokers?

Notice how I only said 10? That's approximately 0.14 percent of an incoming class every year. And YES, there is a small segment of th epopulation that will get a bad image of an area because of smokers. The chances of losing smokers is low, because most smokers are already used to being relegated to allowed places, and while the campus may be off limits, the rest of the city is open to them.

It is truly incredible how far you reach up into your ass to pull out that kind of shit. I had to stop drinking my coffee and laugh hard at this shit oh my fucking god.

Or you could have just said you think that reason is unlikely. But hey, why actually debate when you can be a memorize leanlifter?

[Feoric]

At 1/16/14 03:13 PM, Saen wrote: Yeah nice job smoke shaming people, treating smokers like they're scum of the earth. I guess professors that smoke should just pack up their research and leave huh? Fuck you dude self righteous piece of shit.

Well this went downhill quickly.

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

At 1/16/14 03:56 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 1/16/14 03:13 PM, Saen wrote: Yeah nice job smoke shaming people, treating smokers like they're scum of the earth. I guess professors that smoke should just pack up their research and leave huh? Fuck you dude self righteous piece of shit.

Well this went downhill quickly.

The atmosphere of this forum is so stuffy. It ought to be taken down a peg.

[Saen]

At 1/16/14 03:51 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
I was at a University where smoking was allowed and then banned (just as yours is now) when you were learning to read. I know EXACTLY what I am talking about. At my campus there were areas (de facto, not de jure) where the smokers would congregate, and guess what? The other 30,000 students avoided those areas as much as possible. They didn't want to have to walk through a stinky clod to get to class. They didn't want to i nhale the nastiness and cough just because they had to go near the area.

Talking about smokers congregating like a pack of wolves. I really do hope you don't claim yourself to be a liberal because you are not a humanist in the slightest sense.

The chances of losing smokers is low, because most smokers are already used to being relegated to allowed places, and while the campus may be off limits, the rest of the city is open to them.

Wow fuck you dude. Tax dollars from smokers and even taxes from cigarettes are used to fund a public university. Smoking students (excluding the fact they pay tuition) have just as much say in where smoking should be allowed on a public campus.

[lapis]

At 1/16/14 03:51 PM, Camarohusky wrote: But hey, why actually debate when you can be a memorize leanlifter?

Lol.

[Feoric]

At 1/16/14 04:28 PM, Saen wrote: Wow fuck you dude. Tax dollars from smokers and even taxes from cigarettes are used to fund a public university. Smoking students (excluding the fact they pay tuition) have just as much say in where smoking should be allowed on a public campus.

That is true, but I think more tax dollars go towards the healthcare system where smokers and people exposed to prolonged secondhand smoke develop terminal illnesses and have pretty damn expensive treatment costs. Following your logic, shouldn't I have a say in where you can and can't smoke? For what it's worth, I used to smoke myself, and everything Camaro has said so far is absolutely true.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/16/14 04:28 PM, Saen wrote: Talking about smokers congregating like a pack of wolves. I really do hope you don't claim yourself to be a liberal because you are not a humanist in the slightest sense.

No, not like a pack of wolves at all. More like cowokers congregating aroudn the water cooler at work. Instead of it being the water cooler it's at the preferred smoking location, whether it be by the ash tray, a set of benches, a lawn, or wherever. Oh, and yes, it is a common habit for smokers to make their smoking breaks a social event, as well they should.

Wow fuck you dude. Tax dollars from smokers and even taxes from cigarettes are used to fund a public university. Smoking students (excluding the fact they pay tuition) have just as much say in where smoking should be allowed on a public campus.

So? My driving tax dollars fund tons of bike improvements, and yet I still must yield to them on the road. It's the nature of life. Furthermore, when you add the idea that a cigarette tax is a 'sin tax' it changes the concept. Cigarette taxes don't exist just because. They exist to discourage the activity, and if that fails to earn money off of it thus making a governmentally deemed bad habit positive for society.

I am only speaking in realities. A person who does an elective activity is regulated is far more likely to accept regulation of that activity than someone else who does not participate in the elective activity is to accept the negative effects of that activity on their life.

I'm not sure why you have such a strong negative response to this. I don't mean why you disagree, that's A-OK. However, you act as if relegation of smoking is a personal affront to you.

I'll tell you where my slant is coming from. First off, I find smoking to be a repulsive activity. It smells bad, it is abraisive to inhale, and I am mildly allergic to it. I do not hold that against those who do it, I just prefer that it is not done around me. But that's mostly irrelevant to this issue, as that could be solved by having smoking zones on campus. On a more relevant note, I enjoy college campuses. I think they are almost universally some of the most aesthetically pleasing places in the country (with the exception of the University of Arizona, ick.) I don't enjoy having to dodge smokers when spending time on a campus. The smoke and smell is a nuisance (in the legal definition), and the fact that the activity is entirely elective, and can be done in nearby areas with little to no extra effort means that the transaction costs of those who need to smoke end up being lesser than the loss of use of the campus by those who do no smoke.

Seeing as unviersities are limited public forums and have a duty to ensure their students are given the best opportunity to learn, all public universities are well within their right and their mission to ban smoking on their campuses.

[Saen]

At 1/16/14 04:37 PM, Feoric wrote:
That is true, but I think more tax dollars go towards the healthcare system where smokers and people exposed to prolonged secondhand smoke develop terminal illnesses and have pretty damn expensive treatment costs. Following your logic, shouldn't I have a say in where you can and can't smoke? For what it's worth, I used to smoke myself, and everything Camaro has said so far is absolutely true.

Prolonged secondhand smoke exposure resulting in a terminal illness? That is the biggest load of horse shit I've ever heard. What cigarette smoke and smoke and dust are known for is endangering asthma patients. In terms of second hand smoke actually developing a health condition, much less a terminal illness, no scientific literature has ever come to such a conclusion. Go google scholar anything pertaining to secondhand smoke. Studies focus on legislation implemented to reduce secondhand smoke within businesses itself.

If and when research is published that concludes secondhand smoke directly causes any illness, then you can take a humanist approach to banning smoking in certain areas. Otherwise you are being a selfish pussy that bitches about the smell of smoke and wanting to ban it in public places entirely.

As for smoking students that refused to attend a university that didn't allow them to smoke on campus, you think professors of similar morals who smoke didn't have their academic priorities straight either?

People like you who are quick to judge and dismiss smokers as stupid are the exact reason why I stand up so vigorously for their rights and the rights of any other minority that are cast aside. Smokers have a right to smoke and as long as they dispose of their smoking litter properly.

[Saen]

At 1/16/14 05:21 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
No, not like a pack of wolves at all. More like cowokers congregating aroudn the water cooler at work. Instead of it being the water cooler it's at the preferred smoking location, whether it be by the ash tray, a set of benches, a lawn, or wherever. Oh, and yes, it is a common habit for smokers to make their smoking breaks a social event, as well they should.

Americans sit and smoke whether in their car or outside on a bench they sit and smoke. Europeans on the other hand walk and smoke. They have two different approaches for exercising their habit which are completely fine.

So? My driving tax dollars fund tons of bike improvements, and yet I still must yield to them on the road. It's the nature of life. Furthermore, when you add the idea that a cigarette tax is a 'sin tax' it changes the concept. Cigarette taxes don't exist just because. They exist to discourage the activity, and if that fails to earn money off of it thus making a governmentally deemed bad habit positive for society.

I am only speaking in realities. A person who does an elective activity is regulated is far more likely to accept regulation of that activity than someone else who does not participate in the elective activity is to accept the negative effects of that activity on their life.

Yup and when such an activity reaches the point of being illegal due to it being detrimental to personal health then the infringement on people's rights are oh so clear, but its already too late by that point. It's what western civilization is realizing with marijuana and finally laws and legislation are being overturned. If we don't stand up for the right of smokers to smoke, the same thing could happen to cigarettes and then we'll being spending billions on another drug war.

I'm not sure why you have such a strong negative response to this. I don't mean why you disagree, that's A-OK. However, you act as if relegation of smoking is a personal affront to you.

I'll tell you where my slant is coming from. First off, I find smoking to be a repulsive activity. It smells bad, it is abraisive to inhale, and I am mildly allergic to it. I do not hold that against those who do it, I just prefer that it is not done around me. But that's mostly irrelevant to this issue, as that could be solved by having smoking zones on campus. On a more relevant note, I enjoy college campuses. I think they are almost universally some of the most aesthetically pleasing places in the country (with the exception of the University of Arizona, ick.) I don't enjoy having to dodge smokers when spending time on a campus. The smoke and smell is a nuisance (in the legal definition), and the fact that the activity is entirely elective, and can be done in nearby areas with little to no extra effort means that the transaction costs of those who need to smoke end up being lesser than the loss of use of the campus by those who do no smoke.

The same message I gave to Feoric applies to you. Your anti smoking ideals are enabling you to behave like a pussy bitch and you need to be told that. Your strongest opposition towards smoking (clearly this is the case sense you spent the most amount of time writing about why you personally despise smoking) is for selfish personal reasons.

I don't smoke and I don't particularly enjoy cigar or cigarette smoke. However, I really loathe marijuana smoke for many reasons, one being that it makes me feel incredibly dizzy and nauseous. That being said, marijuana smoke is also just as harmless and I will not allow my personal resentment towards marijuana prohibit other people who enjoy marijuana from smoking it and in a few states their right to smoke it.

If I showed the same discrimination as you do towards smokers, I would have a lot fewer friends and would feel like a shitty person. That's what you're behaving like, a shitty person, start practicing some empathy towards people who smoke and maybe then you'll understand what I'm saying.

Seeing as unviersities are limited public forums and have a duty to ensure their students are given the best opportunity to learn, all public universities are well within their right and their mission to ban smoking on their campuses.

Spoken like a true politician, smoking has absolutely nothing to do with learning and academics in any sense.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/16/14 05:52 PM, Saen wrote: Americans sit and smoke whether in their car or outside on a bench they sit and smoke. Europeans on the other hand walk and smoke. They have two different approaches for exercising their habit which are completely fine.

Perhaps if American smokers were more mobile, their activity would generate far less of a nuisance. It'd still be a nuisance, but a lesser one.

Yup and when such an activity reaches the point of being illegal due to it being detrimental to personal health then the infringement on people's rights are oh so clear, but its already too late by that point. It's what western civilization is realizing with marijuana and finally laws and legislation are being overturned. If we don't stand up for the right of smokers to smoke, the same thing could happen to cigarettes and then we'll being spending billions on another drug war.

No one is stopping smokers from smoking at home. However, it is irrefutable that smoking is a social buisance. It creates a very unpleasant smell, a very unpleasant smoke, and has adverse health effects upon those who are merely near it. The right of society to be free from these nuisances, or at least to have the nuisances controlled is far more important than allowing total freedom for an elective act. If we have the ability to create zoning laws to keep steel mills from belching their stench, smoke, and adverse health effects in certain parts of our communities, why can't we do the same with cigarettes and other similar items?

I don't smoke and I don't particularly enjoy cigar or cigarette smoke. However, I really loathe marijuana smoke for many reasons, one being that it makes me feel incredibly dizzy and nauseous. That being said, marijuana smoke is also just as harmless and I will not allow my personal resentment towards marijuana prohibit other people who enjoy marijuana from smoking it and in a few states their right to smoke it.

The act of smoking doesn't bother. If one chooses to smoke in their car, or in their home or in an open field, I don't mind. It's the buisance effects of smoking the smoke, the smell, and the health problems that I and society does not like. There are numerous public nuisances we control in society that are far more important to society than smoking. If you really think about it, the nuisance effects of smoking are the EXACT SAME as with many heavily regulated nuisances, such as factories, sewage treatment plants, dumps, and so on. Just because the smell, smoke, and adverse health effects come from a stick in a person's mouth doesn;t make it any less of a nuisance than a smoke stack at a factory.

If I showed the same discrimination as you do towards smokers, I would have a lot fewer friends and would feel like a shitty person. That's what you're behaving like, a shitty person, start practicing some empathy towards people who smoke and maybe then you'll understand what I'm saying.

You're not understanding the issue. You're taking the same shallow approach of the uber-pro Israel camp that thinks ANY criticism of Israel automatically is anti-semetism. I'm not discriminating against smokers. I am cleaning up a pervasive public nuisance. That it so happens to affect people who choose to do a very elective activity is not intended. If they made a cigarette that didn't stink, didn't create smoke, and didn't have adverse health effects on nearby people, this would not be an issue. I wouldn't care where people smoked, However, that hasn't happened and smoking still remains a very disruptive act.

Spoken like a true politician, smoking has absolutely nothing to do with learning and academics in any sense.

I'm no politician. What I am is experienced with the law. Schools of all levels have an obligation to stop activities that can hinder the learning on campus. This including the restriction or banning of an act that creates a disruptive odor, a disruptive smoke, and one that adversely affects the health of the student body. A student can't properly learn if they're distracted by the stench, or if they're busy fighting off a throat cold caused by exposure to smoke. Schools also have the obligation to ensure their students are free of mind inhibiting substances during class.

[Saen]

At 1/16/14 06:24 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
No one is stopping smokers from smoking at home. However, it is irrefutable that smoking is a social buisance. It creates a very unpleasant smell, a very unpleasant smoke, and has adverse health effects upon those who are merely near it. The right of society to be free from these nuisances, or at least to have the nuisances controlled is far more important than allowing total freedom for an elective act. If we have the ability to create zoning laws to keep steel mills from belching their stench, smoke, and adverse health effects in certain parts of our communities, why can't we do the same with cigarettes and other similar items?

If smoking is so deadly in every single fashion including direct puffing and secondhand smoke why not just outlaw tobacco entirely? That is on the horizon and people like you are promoting that outcome. Secondhand smoke has not been shown to cause any kind of disease. It's not even in the same league as coal fire plants, smog, or asbestus, all of which do directly result in a respiratory illness, suffocation, or are carcinogens.

When you assume secondhand smoke is deadly like actual smoking, you make the same incorrect assumption people first made about smoking. People assumed smoking was healthy and had medical properties, turns out that assumption was wrong when evidence from scientific research proved otherwise. Scientists has been researching secondhand smoke for decades and yet no conclusion of secondhand smoke developing an illness within their case studies has been found.

You hear talk of secondhand smoke being attributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths a year when really that is all just complete bullshit. These studies are composed of non-smokers who have already died from respiratory illnesses, cancer, or asthma, and simply relating those figures to the amount of secondhand smoke in that country/area. These studies are a complete farse and any reasonable person shouldn't draw any kind of conclusion from them.

An example of an legitimate scientific study would certainly have to involve LIVING nonsmoking volunteers inhaling controlled amounts of secondhand smoke. I've looked and haven't found such an experiment you're welcome to search and post one. If you argue that this would be inhumane, how inhumane is it to conduct a similar experiment with volunteer smokers themselves (we don't find this inhumane, it's how we determined smoking to a health risk in the first place)?

Secondhand had smoke is an irritant for some people that is the most scientists have been able to conclude.

You're not understanding the issue. You're taking the same shallow approach of the uber-pro Israel camp that thinks ANY criticism of Israel automatically is anti-semetism. I'm not discriminating against smokers. I am cleaning up a pervasive public nuisance. That it so happens to affect people who choose to do a very elective activity is not intended. If they made a cigarette that didn't stink, didn't create smoke, and didn't have adverse health effects on nearby people, this would not be an issue. I wouldn't care where people smoked, However, that hasn't happened and smoking still remains a very disruptive act.

What I am upset about is people like you is further confining smokers in practicing their habit. The reasoning for doing such a thing is currently entirely opinion based (i.e. most people don't enjoy secondhand smoke, not that it is actually harmful).

I'm no politician. What I am is experienced with the law. Schools of all levels have an obligation to stop activities that can hinder the learning on campus. This including the restriction or banning of an act that creates a disruptive odor, a disruptive smoke, and one that adversely affects the health of the student body. A student can't properly learn if they're distracted by the stench, or if they're busy fighting off a throat cold caused by exposure to smoke. Schools also have the obligation to ensure their students are free of mind inhibiting substances during class.

Schools have a duty to provide education, especially when it's paid for. For instance I would love FSU to spend money on hiring much needed Chemistry professors to teach Organic Chemistry (there's a huge shortage of professors) for students which require/demand it. When this funding is being spent elsewhere (like antismoking campaigns among other things) a school has less resources to provide actual education in the first place.

What I'm saying concerning schools is provide education first, regulate education second.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/16/14 07:40 PM, Saen wrote: Secondhand had smoke is an irritant for some people that is the most scientists have been able to conclude.

And that is ALL you need to show in order for a state entity to regulate it.

What I am upset about is people like you is further confining smokers in practicing their habit. The reasoning for doing such a thing is currently entirely opinion based (i.e. most people don't enjoy secondhand smoke, not that it is actually harmful).

Yes, and that is the definition of a nuisance.

And the only thing keeping me from taking a shit on the Landis Green is your aversion to watching someone defecate and the smell of it. Why is it that you are not advocating for the right to relieve myself in the open on your campus?

Schools have a duty to provide education, especially when it's paid for.

True, but part of providing an education is providing a safe, clean, and proper environment conducive to learning. The removal of smoking aids in all three aspects.

For instance I would love FSU to spend money on hiring much needed Chemistry professors to teach Organic Chemistry (there's a huge shortage of professors) for students which require/demand it. When this funding is being spent elsewhere (like antismoking campaigns among other things) a school has less resources to provide actual education in the first place.

Funding for colleges, especially large ones, is very tricky. Funding comes from many sources: the State (in an ever shrinking percentage), tuition, grants, general donations, and earmarked donations. For all you know, a very wealthy donor who dislikes smoking may have conditioned the payment of a sizeable sum upon the institution of a no smoking policy.

Also, in relation to actually inceeasing education, such regulation is extremely cheap. Like I said before, the police are likely not doing much extra work, the counselors are likely paid by stipend, credit, or not at all, thus leaving the only real remaining cost being the flyers.

[Saen]

At 1/16/14 09:31 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
And that is ALL you need to show in order for a state entity to regulate it.

I find kids who skateboard on campus irritating. On top of this skateboarding is dangerous, because they often fall off and crash into people. Also I find people who walk with their headphones on irritating and dangerous because of their resulting oblivious nature!

No you fuckhead being irritated by something is not a viable reason for banning it entirely on campus. Like I said earlier you're behaving like a selfish pussy ass bitch, get over it.

True, but part of providing an education is providing a safe, clean, and proper environment conducive to learning. The removal of smoking aids in all three aspects.

Do professors hold lecture on the sidewalk? No. What keeps a school clean is how strict the no littering policy is and how involved campus ground workers are.

Also, in relation to actually inceeasing education, such regulation is extremely cheap. Like I said before, the police are likely not doing much extra work, the counselors are likely paid by stipend, credit, or not at all, thus leaving the only real remaining cost being the flyers.

The cost of paper itself has been enough to prohibit professors from printing and passing out handouts and lectures. If additional work needs to be done by all campus police that certainly leads to additional police being hired and as a result additional expense. As for counselors, professional counseling requires professional counselors who need to be payed.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/16/14 09:52 PM, Saen wrote: I find kids who skateboard on campus irritating. On top of this skateboarding is dangerous, because they often fall off and crash into people.

Many place HAVE banned skate boarding.

People talking on a college campus isnt an objective nuisance, especially as communication is vital to a good school.

No you fuckhead being irritated by something is not a viable reason for banning it entirely on campus. Like I said earlier you're behaving like a selfish pussy ass bitch, get over it.

A lot of people are irritated by it, thus making it a public nuisance. Again, your "if you don't like, who cares?" philosphy would allow litter and defecation on campus. As the only reason they're banned is because pussy ass bitches don't like it. (see, your reckless ad hominem came back to describe yourself.)

Do professors hold lecture on the sidewalk? No. What keeps a school clean is how strict the no littering policy is and how involved campus ground workers are.

Actually, sometimes they do.

Picking up trash insn't the only aspect of cleanliness.

The cost of paper itself has been enough to prohibit professors from printing and passing out handouts and lectures.

Do you know of the anti-smoking money is even allowed to go to the professors?

Also, why shouldn't a college invest in being the nicest place possible? I mean if FSU is allowed to become a shit hole, the best students will go to Gainesville instead and all of their endowment and donation money will be blue and orange instead of crimson and gold. So, a small infusion to keep the campus as nice as possible will pay dividends in the long run.

Oh, FYI, if you want to be taken seriously as an adult, stop with the lobbing of insults. It seriously detracts from your points.

[LazyDrunk]

At 1/16/14 12:40 PM, Saen wrote: A new phenomena is sweeping my university. Tobacco free posters, sidewalk plagues, and fliers are everywhere. Apparently as of this semester FSU is tobacco free. These signs also advertise "free" consoling if you're trying to quit.

It's not new, but whatever.

Now what does banning smoking on campus actually accomplish?

It means that now the school can fine you for disobeying another policy brought about through your own inactivity. Bitch to your school, not NG.

It also means that now, once smokers get ticketed and cry and start throwing even more butts where they don't belong, the groundskeeper can take solace in knowing those nasty bastards will be getting harrassed and harangued by rent-a-cops and the student body alike.

Sucks to be a minority, eh?

[Saen]

At 1/16/14 10:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Many place HAVE banned skate boarding.

People talking on a college campus isnt an objective nuisance, especially as communication is vital to a good school.

Not MY campus. Headphones as in music headphones you cock.

A lot of people are irritated by it, thus making it a public nuisance. Again, your "if you don't like, who cares?" philosphy would allow litter and defecation on campus. As the only reason they're banned is because pussy ass bitches don't like it. (see, your reckless ad hominem came back to describe yourself.)

Litter is irritating AND harmful. It is harmful to local ecosystems and our water table, that's why it's illegal. Littering is not illegal simply because it's irritating. Part of the problem with smoking in America is in most states and jurisdiction cigarette butts aren't actually considered litter within anti-littering laws. Adding provisions to these anti-littering laws to include cigarettes is the first step to stop butt flicking, not banning smoking from public places.

Also, why shouldn't a college invest in being the nicest place possible? I mean if FSU is allowed to become a shit hole, the best students will go to Gainesville instead and all of their endowment and donation money will be blue and orange instead of crimson and gold. So, a small infusion to keep the campus as nice as possible will pay dividends in the long run.

What Biology majors consider between deciding FSU and UF is how extensive their class offerings are towards medical science, ecology, molecular biology, etc. UF is renowned for their premed curriculum and offerings while FSU has one of the top ten evolutionary and ecology curriculums and professors in the States. The same can be said for other majors.

FSU was not a shit hole when smoking was allowed and it certainly doesn't look any better with the addition of "Tobacco Free" signs plastered all over our beautiful brick walkways.

Oh, FYI, if you want to be taken seriously as an adult, stop with the lobbing of insults. It seriously detracts from your points.

Like I said, you are acting like a stuck up selfish little bitch and you need to know that.

[TNT]

At 1/16/14 10:44 PM, Saen wrote:

At 1/16/14 10:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Oh, FYI, if you want to be taken seriously as an adult, stop with the lobbing of insults. It seriously detracts from your points.

Like I said, you are acting like a stuck up selfish little bitch and you need to know that.

No one will take you seriously if you continue to insult others like that. I actually don't believe that Universities should ban smoking on campus either, but Camarohusky shows much more credibility in his argument than yours do. Every time you post something that I agree with, you shoot yourself in the foot by mocking Camarohusky for having a different opinion. Why do you feel that it's necessary to do this?

[Camarohusky]

At 1/16/14 10:44 PM, Saen wrote: Litter is irritating AND harmful. It is harmful to local ecosystems and our water table, that's why it's illegal. Littering is not illegal simply because it's irritating.

So, are you saying that smoke is not pollution?

Slight digression here, but with a purpose, what do you think about zoning laws? Do you think I should be able to build a large paper mill that operates 24/7 next door to your house?

What Biology majors consider between deciding FSU and UF

How many graduating high school students have any clue what they want to do in college? At best, half. That means 50% of the students coming in are doing so for other reasons, and you can bet that a large chunk of them are going because they liked the campus. Therefore, how nice the campus looks IS important in drawing in students.

Like I said, you are acting like a stuck up selfish little bitch and you need to know that.

The most annoying thing here is that, unlike memorize and leanlifter, you actually make good points. Yet you ruin it by constantly lobbing insults at anyone who you believe doesn't agree with you (whether they actually do or not). All you need to do is just make your point.

[Saen]

At 1/16/14 11:02 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
So, are you saying that smoke is not pollution?

C02 emissions are pollution yes. Lighting a cigarette is comparable to lighting a match when comparing C02 emissions. There may come a point in time to limit/ban smoking entirely simply to lower C02 emissions, but currently it is a non-issue concerning climate change seeing as scientists and conservationists have much greater emission problems on their hands.

What I will not argue against is how serious and foul butt-flicking is, I've already made my point on that.

Slight digression here, but with a purpose, what do you think about zoning laws? Do you think I should be able to build a large paper mill that operates 24/7 next door to your house?

There is a difference between pollution from cigarettes and from a fucking paper mill. Paper mills produce a large amount of pollution concentrated within a small area. Cigarettes for one do not pollute close to the same scale as paper mills and two equivalent pollution from cigarette smoke is spread across a much much larger area.

I'm sure you have diesel generators on campus, if you want to talk something that pollutes our air with substance and sound, why did these not concern you more than smokers on campus? Diesel generators are incredibly loud and pollute on a scale much larger than all smokers on campus and are apparently excluded from zoning laws. When schools can put solar panels on their roofs instead (especially here in Florida) why tolerate a diesel generator? It's actually a real example of an irritating source of pollution that you can't avoid.

Of course that thought didn't occur to you even though it is such an obvious disturbance, why? I think it's because you don't give a shit about pollution, you only care about cigarette smoke putting wrinkles on your face.

How many graduating high school students have any clue what they want to do in college? At best, half. That means 50% of the students coming in are doing so for other reasons, and you can bet that a large chunk of them are going because they liked the campus. Therefore, how nice the campus looks IS important in drawing in students.

How a campus looks entirely depends on how strict antilitter laws are and are enforced, custodial clean up is, and how well grounds are kept. E.g. a campus with all of these factors along with smoking allowed on campus will look much better than a school which lacks in any one of these factors.

The most annoying thing here is that, unlike memorize and leanlifter, you actually make good points. Yet you ruin it by constantly lobbing insults at anyone who you believe doesn't agree with you (whether they actually do or not). All you need to do is just make your point.

Yeah well the truth hurts doesn't it buddy? I don't call people bitches who aren't behaving like them. People who act like little bitches are the one of the reasons why smokers are labeled as scum of the earth by society. Labeling a group of good people that way is not acceptable.

[Saen]

At 1/16/14 10:58 PM, TNT wrote:
Every time you post something that I agree with, you shoot yourself in the foot by mocking Camarohusky for having a different opinion. Why do you feel that it's necessary to do this?

You can read my last post for the answer to that.

[Korriken]

Aww, sounds like some poor tarlung is all cranky because he has to leave campus to have his fix.

and yes, this is all the respect you're gonna get out of me considering you call anyone who doesn't agree with you a "Pussy bitch" which is kind of funny, since you come off as one yourself.

[Saen]

At 1/17/14 12:51 AM, Korriken wrote: Aww, sounds like some poor tarlung is all cranky because he has to leave campus to have his fix.

and yes, this is all the respect you're gonna get out of me considering you call anyone who doesn't agree with you a "Pussy bitch" which is kind of funny, since you come off as one yourself.

Thanks for contributing to the discussion.