University of Michigan gets ready to go totally smoke-free on campus

[Hot Mega]

How embarrassing.

On July 1, the University of Michigan will become the state's first big university to ban smoking on its campus, The Detroit Free Press reported today.

"By making all campus grounds smoke-free, the university intends to send a firm message that smoking is bad for the health of our faculty, staff and students, and that the university will support smokers in stopping and discourage nonsmokers from taking up smoking," Dr. Robert Winfield, U-M's chief health officer, told the Free Press.

http://www.annarbor.com/news/university-of-michigan-gets-ready-to-go-totally-smoke-free-on-campus/

 

[Will E Worm]

By making all campus grounds smoke-free, the university intends to send a firm message that smoking is bad M'Kay. :1orglaugh

By taking freedoms away the university intends to send a firm message that we agree with Fascism.

 

[Atar554]

Are we seriously going to debate smoking laws .....again?

le sigh

 

[Trident1]

Nanny state laws again. Freedom? Hardly.

 

[Atar554]

Freedom?

it's an institution that you pay to attend. They would technically have the right to have any rules they want.

I don't see how this is an issue.

 

[Trident1]

So smoking outdoors should be allowed.

 

[Hot Mega]

Freedom?

it's an institution that you pay to attend. They would technically have the right to have any rules they want.

I don't see how this is an issue.

They are interposing in personal behavior not just inside of enclosed places but including outside, open space.

They may disagree with smoking as an institution but they should be pro choice on the personal behavior.

It's fair to discourage/ban it in enclosed places but to interfere with personal behavior/habits that are legal and/or not obscene in open space is an overreach IMO.

Extremism too.:2 cents:

 

[Atar554]

So smoking outdoors should be allowed.

Perhaps. But if I owned the property and didn't want it...it's my say isn't it? Especially if you're paying me money to be there.

As smokers would say to non smokers "find someplace else"

Find a college that allows smoking everywhere?

They are interjecting in personal behavior not just inside of enclosed places but including outside, open space.

They may disagree with smoking as an institution but they should be pro choice on the personal behavior.

It's fair to discourage/ban it in enclosed places but to interfere with personal behavior/habits that are legal and/or not obscene in open space is an overreach IMO.

Extremism too.:2 cents:

So they shouldn't be pro choice when it comes to their own choice?

if you go to the Capital and you're a reporter you can't stand and do an interview on the stairs. You'll be forced to move.

If you own the land you get to have your rules that's part of the whole idea of "ownership". If you came into my home and I didn't want you to smoke I'd expect you not to; the University is doing similar. It's just more troubling to some because it's a place of learning and not a private residence. Thus involving more people.

 

[Trident1]

Perhaps. But if I owned the property and didn't want it...it's my say isn't it? Especially if you're paying me money to be there.

As smokers would say to non smokers "find someplace else"

Find a college that allows smoking everywhere?

Smoking outdoors should be acceptable. I mean does the University own the airspace as well?

 

[Atar554]

Smoking outdoors should be acceptable. I mean does the University own the airspace as well?

If you can smoke while levitating in the air or perhaps in a helicopter that's fine I'd wager to bet.

But the land and buildings...nope, you can't.

Also unless you're a Native American pre-colonization, no one believes things like air and water are owner-less and can't be bought, sold, stolen or traded for.

 

[Hot Mega]

Perhaps. But if I owned the property and didn't want it...it's my say isn't it? Especially if you're paying me money to be there.

As smokers would say to non smokers "find someplace else"

Find a college that allows smoking everywhere?




So they shouldn't be pro choice when it comes to their own choice?

if you go to the Capital and you're a reporter you can't stand and do an interview on the stairs. You'll be forced to move.

If you own the land you get to have your rules that's part of the whole idea of "ownership". If you came into my home and I didn't want you to smoke I'd expect you not to as the University is doing similar. It's just more troubling to some because it's a place of learning and not a private residence.

They should have a right to protect others on the facility but not the right to ban legal, personal behavior.

You have it about 180 wrong Atar...if they were paying me to be there...maybe they could have some say so in what personal behavior I can engage in (e.g. BYU player on scholarship suspended for fucking his g/f.).

But if I am paying you for your 'service' you should have no say so over my legal, personal behavior that doesn't impact others.

 

[Trident1]

If you can smoke while levitating in the air or perhaps in a helicopter that's fine I'd wager to bet.

But the land and buildings...nope, you can't.

Also unless you're a Native American pre-colonization, no one believes things like air and water are owner-less and can't be bought, sold, stolen or traded for.

So going on a rooftop or an isolated parking area to smoke should be illegal as well? Completely insane.

 

[Atar554]

So going on a rooftop or an isolated parking area to smoke should be illegal as well? Completely insane.

Perhaps, but it's nothing new imo. Sorta like work disallowing inter-office relationships.

It also could be a case of them not wanting congregations of smokers. I remember going to HS and smoking was not allowed on campus. The corner just across the street would have literally 15 to 25 people (depending on the time) standing in front of someone's house smoking it up. It was a major problem for a while. Specially when they did more than just stand there, smoke and shoot the shit.

They should have a right to protect others on the facility but not the right to ban legal, personal behavior.

You have it about 180 wrong Atar...if they were paying me to be there...maybe they could have some say so in what personal behavior I can engage in (e.g. BYU player on scholarship suspended for fucking his g/f.).

But if I am paying you for your 'service' you should have no say so over my legal, personal behavior that doesn't impact others.

I'm just playing devil's advocate so you guys can get your points across... I honestly don't give that much of a shit.

Your money goes to the day to day operations of everything, for instance; If you go to a University like UofM a good chunk of your tuition goes to the Athletic Department even though you are probably only going for academics. You have a harder time paying for your education so Timmy the star QB can get an easy ride...because he's putting points on the board and making the school look good.

He's also helping them earn millions overall. Do you get any of that action? nope. You get higher prices and that's it.

The fact remains though they own the land and can do whatever stupid things they want with it.

Sorta like how the NCAA uses collegiate students as slave labor. Unpaid but doing the work of prime-time pro athletes.

 

[Will E Worm]

Smoking outdoors should be acceptable. I mean does the University own the airspace as well?

:yesyes: If people do not like it they can walk away. :hatsoff:

 

[Hot Mega]

I'm just playing devil's advocate so you guys can get your points across... I honestly don't give that much of a shit.

Your money goes to the day to day operations of everything, for instance; If you go to a University like UofM a good chunk of your tuition goes to the Athletic Department even though you are probably only going for academics. You have a harder time paying for your education so Timmy the star QB can get an easy ride...because he's putting points on the board and making the school look good.

He's also helping them earn millions overall. Do you get any of that action? nope. You get higher prices and that's it.

The fact remains though they own the land and can do whatever stupid things they want with it.

Sorta like how the NCAA uses collegiate students as slave labor. Unpaid but doing the work of prime-time pro athletes.

UM would be a bad example of tuition supporting athletics. UM football alone generated about $35 million in profit for the university last year and is value at near $100 million.:2 cents:

 

[Atar554]

UM would be a bad example of tuition supporting athletics. UM football alone generated about $35 million in profits for the university last year and is value at near $100 million.:2 cents:

True but I stayed with them since they were being discussed. The point remains for many schools that don't have as popular of sports teams, yet are under pressure to compete.

"The U-M Athletic Department is one of only a handful of major university athletic departments in the nation to pay for 100 percent of its expenses and make an annual contribution to the university's fund for need-based financial aid for Michigan students who are not athletes"

That's my point. You're at most schools and you're not there for sports. However you're paying for it.

 

[Facetious]

Social reengineering 101

 

[busenbust]

i like the idea ! concentrate on education, not on fumes !

 

[Hot Mega]

True but I stayed with them since they were being discussed. The point remains for many schools that don't have as popular of sports teams, yet are under pressure to compete.

"The U-M Athletic Department is one of only a handful of major university athletic departments in the nation to pay for 100 percent of its expenses and make an annual contribution to the university's fund for need-based financial aid for Michigan students who are not athletes"

That's my point. You're at most schools and you're not there for sports. However you're paying for it.

I'm not sure why that matters in this discussion Atar.

I think the point/effect of UM's actions is to govern personal behavior they disagree with.

That's is wrong and sets a slippery precedence. Now of course you'll have those who line up on the side of encroachment into personal behavior (who otherwise wouldn't) just because this particular personal behavior they disagree with. But extremist interference in personal behavior is wrong no matter where from.

 

[Trident1]

It's going to get to a point where you will have to conform to every freakin rule to be outside and enjoy anything.

"Signs sign everywhere signs, don't do this, don't do that..............."