Argh. I hate cigarettes, and I've never smoked, but I'd be tempted to help the smokers out by smoking everywhere and anywhere on campus that wasn't in a public building. In your own car? For fuck's sake.

Does the ban include marihuana smoke? Even with one of those ubiquitous prescriptions?

This is going to work about as well as the bans on underage drinking and illegal drug use are currently working.

I'm not a tottering ancient, but my HIGH SCHOOL actually had two smoking areas for students. The public attitude (and laws) toward smoking have changed drastically within a generation.

A friend of mine works in a hospital in Alabama and she had to be a non smoker to get the job, and yes they tested her before she started working and there is the possibility of random drug tests in the future. Crazy world.

Okay, they're going sort of far, but as far as "private rooms" go,
that's misleading. If the "private room" is in a dorm, it's
completely understandable. Those rooms aren't hermetically sealed.
Smoking in them does affect their neighbors, both in air
quality and fire safety.

I would say "Your right to emit foul odors ends where my nose...and lungs, and clothes, and sofa...begin."

That takes things rather to far snoopy. They're not doing you any harm after all. Hell it takes DECADES for people who inhale it directly into their lungs pack after pack day after day in large quantities to pose any potential danger.

A whiff of smoke isn't going to hurt you.

I love a good cigar myself, I smoke them usually a few times a month, I don't particularly mind moving outside to do it, hell I prefer clubs that are centered around it.

Cigar bars are an amazing place to meet interesting and intelligent people.

Hell my company's biggest selling product is a digital cigar journal (referred to as the "Modern Cigar Journal") for iphones and ipads. Its not a habit, its a lifestyle.

But even with my great enjoyment of this hobby, I don't mind getting out of people's way who can't stand the smell.

What I DO mind are smarmy self righteous busybodies who want to wrap us all in bubble wrap for fear that we might be enjoying things that they don't like.

What I DO mind are smarmy self righteous busybodies who want to wrap us all in bubble wrap for fear that we might be enjoying things that they don't like.

THIS!!

I heart Robert!

Only the most sensitive people will be bothered by someone smoking in another dorm room. Certainly no one will be bothered by someone smoking in a car. People in my apartment building smoke and I can't smell a thing. I'm not going to get cancer from wandering past someone's door, and if I do, I was probably going to get cancer anyway.

As for fire safety, anyone can be an idiot and start a fire. We once had a fire in my dorm caused by a girl who tossed her sweater over a lamp.

If it really were a health issue, chasing the smokers outside would have been sufficient, I think, but UC probably did that already long ago. I could even see banning smoking in the dorms, if UC hasn't already done that (and I'll bet you a nickel they have). After all, getting the cigarette smell out of a room can be a pain even after the smoker has moved out.

No, this move can only be seen as a statement about how UC just won't tolerate activities they find offensive, free choice or not.

Any news about whether the deep fat fryers will be removed from the dining halls?

Your right to emit foul odors...
This if fine, if the ban also includes
- Cologne/perfume, excess use of (the offended, not the offending, reserve the right to determine 'excess use of')
- Body odor (again, the offended make the determination)

We could continue, but I think you get the point.

Our local hospital (and largest employer in town) first announced that they would not hire any smokers. Then they banned smoking in the hospital. Then they banned smoking on their property, which included in cars parked in employee and visitor lots. It was only when they tried to stop people from smoking on the city streets surrounding the hospital, that the city council finally told them they went too far.

Wow. Fallacy much?

"Two Wrongs" is here in citing the sweater fire.

"Appeal to Consequences" is here in "Hell it takes DECADES for people who inhale it directly into their lungs pack after pack day after day in large quantities to pose any potential danger." That's also factually incorrect. The correct statement is "Generally, though the acute effects of cigarette smoke are immediate and measurable, chronic exposure does not raise the incidence of some cardiopulmonary diseases for some time."

R.J. Reynolds, in fact, advertises that there is no such thing as a "safe" cigarette. In my case it appears that the first effects of smoking are blindness and confusion, as smokers apparently cannot identify ashtrays, mistaking the ground anywhere near them for same.

Stick to the point: may smokers smoke, and under what circumstances?

Question: what makes you think smoking is a right?

"No, this move can only be seen as a statement about how UC just won't tolerate activities they find offensive, free choice or no"

Their property, their rules. Now, the car thing I find dumb, but the rest? UC gets to make the rules and you (and everyone else) get to decide if you want to patronize them or not. Or, since they get so much gov't money, maybe the gov't gets to make the rules. Either way, it's their right, just as not attending is yours.

One smoker on the far side of the park is enough to foul the air to me, but I am a super-smeller. In general, though, smokers seem to think it reeks much less to the rest of us than it actually does. And I've never appreciated having to run the smokers gauntlet on my way into buildings, so I appreciate places that make the entire campus no-smoking. I'm more likely to patronize them.

This if fine, if the ban also includes...Body odor (again, the offended make the determination)

I know what' you're saying here, but are you going to make me bathe? so much for "your rights end where my fist begins".

California.

'Nuff said.

RRRoark asked if marujuana smoke is exempted. Maybe - one California county wrote an anti-smoking ordnance, then re-wrote it to exclude pot before passing it.

pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/01/11/liberal-totalitarians-carve-out-a-niche-for-marijuana-smoke/

I can smell smoke on a persons clothes days after they claimed they quit. Cant stand the smell of them - dont mind cigars for the most part though.

But even I think this is overkill

There was a similar policy at my kid's school. No smoking was allowed and that included in your car in the parking lot. I thought it was ridiculous that I couldn't smoke in my car with my windows shut and my ashtray open and admittedly ignored the rule. I noticed a few other guilty people trying to hide the fact that they were smoking in their cars too.

Do people have a right to walk around and not have to go through clouds of smoke? Yes. But it's getting a little crazy when there's no place inside or out that people can smoke. I quit years ago and was always respectful of non-smokers and their comfort level. I have noticed that the reformed smokers seem to be the worst when it comes to hating the smell. Personally, I still love it.

I have no problem with a private business deciding they want to be smoke-free. Unfortunately the UC system is technically a private business, unfortunately, as I noted before.

My problem is when the government gets in the way of how a private business runs their business. Or the government supports the action beyond what is legal.

Now the question is if I stand on the property and light up what happens. If I'm just expelled from the property with a warning "no smoking or else" and the follow-up is a simple trespassing warning that is acceptable. If I face criminal charges for the first offense because I refuse to put it out, then you take it to another realm.

If the government is enforcing the UC rules as a part of the state law (beyond the simple trespassing enforcement) then UC has to defend the decision to evict the protesters because they are a public entity. If they evict the smokers as a public entity, then they lose for evicting the OWS protesters as a private entity.

You can't have it both ways.

So, again - how is smoking a right?

How is smoking not a right?

I'm learning to play the cello and it doesn't yet sound very good. This screeching sound fouls the air of all within earshot. I am considerate of my neighbors and play it during reasonable hours, use a practice mute, etc. It still has to be pretty annoying to some. How is learning to play the cello a right? 'cause it just is.

Well, if you really want to stop smoking on campus, just take off and nuke the campus from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

So, again - how is smoking a right? -- Radwaste at January 14, 2012 5:09 AM

Somewhere in here:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That means that this is a civil matter, provided the state or federal government is not involved.

I'm waiting for the first challenge on banning smoking in NYC parks or the cities in California that ban it.

The founders set up our government as a republic not a democracy. In a democracy it means the majority rules. In a republic anyone can do what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on others.

I hate smoke, but if you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone. However, to use a HOSPITAL banning smoking as any sort of argument of an organization going to far is completely absurd.

Well, so far I have an "it just is" and a citation of the Constitution which is off-base at best.

The Federal Constitution, the one most everybody means, limits Federal government. Morton Grove v. Quilici established that State and local governments can, indeed, be more restrictive of the populace than the Federal government - and, in fact, the cited line DOES say that the States have such powers.

So. How is smoking a right?

Notice that there are real restrictions in place now on the exercise of enumerated rights, so be thorough!

You have more than an "it just is". You have a question. How is smoking not a right?

Replace the word smoking in your original question with other random words, How is masturbation a right? How is baking a potato a right? How is visiting a friend a right? How is doing jumping jacks a right? and on, and on, and on.

We have a general right to live our lives according to what brings us enjoyment. Those that claim that someone smoking outdoors and an half an acre away are somehow bothering them have a candied ass and need to shut the fuck up.

Notice that there are real restrictions in place now on the exercise of enumerated rights, so be thorough! -- Posted by: Radwaste at January 14, 2012 7:33 PM

Glad to be.

The restrictions of Quilici were overturned by Heller in 2008. And further refined by McDonald in 2010.

There was something I picked up on years ago. While it is a military meme -- it also applies in the civilian world: Never give an order you know won’t be obeyed.

You can make all the laws and rules you want. There will be a large percentage that will follow the rule because they are sheeple. But you will have some ignore it and some openly flout it.

As I noted above -- we are in a republic -- if it is not specifically prohibited it is allowed.

"I know what' you're saying here, but are you going to make me bathe?" No just stay home if you refuse to abide by basic social norms. Inhaling fungal spores has been shown to be on par with smoking for respiratory damage. So an obese person with a fungal infection due to poor hygiene is also posing a threat to your health.
Same for cheap perfume bathers and allergies. Your desire to smell like a recently disinfected bordello can pose a serious health rise for people with certain allergies. Second hand smoke may or may not kill you 20 years from now, anaphalactic shock will kill you now. There are plenty of other examples.

You want to solve the second hand smoke issue, set designated smoking areas with butt receptacles. Drop a HEPA filter with a carbon pad on the exhaust like they have to have on chem labs. This is about social control nothing more.