UC Davis officials announced in June that tobacco use will be banned starting Jan. 1 on all university property, including UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento, as part of a University of California systemwide policy...What group will be next?
One campuswide ban being considered by CSUS President Alexander Gonzalez would prohibit all smoking, tobacco chewing and use of electronic cigarettes on school property except within a personal vehicle as soon as 2015. Smoking is now allowed on campus as long as it isn’t within 20 feet from buildings, in Hornet Stadium or on major walkways...
“We are supposed to be a community that works together, and we are ostracizing students that are making legal decisions as adults,” he said...
A survey conducted in 2011 by the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services found that 14 percent of CSUS students smoked, according to the task force report.
Henthorn points to the low number as evidence that new restrictions aren’t needed. Proponents of the ban say the data show a small number of smokers are impacting the vast majority who must endure secondhand smoke...
At Sacramento State, smokers were hard to find Wednesday. Senior Julie Martinez said she isn’t happy about the possibility of a tobacco ban. “I pay a fortune for tuition,” Martinez said. “There are nothing but adults here. … It’s not the school’s job to tell me to stop smoking.”
Martinez said that some of the areas on campus where smokers congregated in the past now have “No Smoking” signs. “I’m glad I’m graduating,” she said.
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Always Been At War With Oceana
There's always got to be a bad guy, and even though I find smoking to be vile and disgusting, I think political calls against it are to be resisted:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I really dislike smoking, but I dislike this more.
The problem with smoking on campus is that other people have to breathe it.
Which really stinks, as it can do lovely things like cause asthma attacks in people.
I have really enjoyed the fact that California has banned smoking in restaurants, bars, and clubs ...I have never smoked, hate the smell, and know that if I'm breathing it, it's potentially lethal. Outdoors, though? I think I can probably sit/stand down wind of you. And, I haven't ever smoked ... but isn't the whole e-cigarette thing based on the concept that it has no smell?
Also note that they include CHEWING tobacco. This isn't about 2nd hand smoke being bad and annoying for non-smokers. This is about forcing folks to live better lives.
-Mark Roulo
There's a pendant I like to wear. It emits ionizing radiation in all directions. I like the way it feels.
Do you dare to abridge my freedom and ask me not to wear it in public? The ionizing radiation is a greater threat to me than anyone else I'm spraying it on. If you don't like it, move away from me. Me and all my friends who enjoy a similar fashion sense.
Only a nanny state would stomp on my right to wear my radioactive jewelry. I'm entitled to radiate wherever I like. This is America!
The difference being there's no danger from "second-hand" smoke.
Really, allen?
CDC's Second-hand Smoke Health Effects
In brief:
Secondhand Smoke Causes Heart Disease
Secondhand Smoke Causes Lung Cancer
Secondhand Smoke Causes SIDS
So that's what the fact-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says. Kindly tell me about your "evidence" that second-hand smoke poses no danger. Honestly, I haven't heard such claims since the Mad Men era. Are cigarettes similarly risk-free?
Did you bother to look at the link you posted or did you just assume that if the CDC says it's so then no further thought is necessary - the oracle has spoken?
Your, and the CDC's, "evidence" seems to consist exclusively of statistical associations of dubious value supported by sneering condescension directed at anyone who doesn't immediately signal obeisance to the new truth. Sorry, but like anthropogenic global warming there's just not much there there and the shortfall of substance is counterbalanced by surfeit of hysteria and invective.
But you do seem a bit confused on this "science" thing.
You see, the hypothesis to which you clearly have sworn allegiance lacks a demonstration proof. Now it's not my hypothesis which means I'm under no obligation at all. It's your hypothesis to prove not mine to disprove. You're not right because no one's yet proven you wrong. You've got to prove yourself right and so far you haven't.
See how that works?
And good luck with that since the hypothesis of the effects of second hand smoke is idiotic on its face.
Care to advance a mechanism for the implied effects that result from periodic exposure to levels of cigarette smoke that's thousands of times less then cigarette smokers experience? Probably not and why would you go to the bother? You have a neatly packaged moral crusade in which you can engage comfortable in the assumption that you're on the side of the angels.
Gosh, who'd be silly enough to question that agreeable situation?
You are clearly from the "I reject your facts and replace them with my own baseless personal philosophy" school.
To wit you reject any and all fact-based research with a derisive, "I'm not convinced." But the reason you are not convinced is divorced from reality. You just don't like reality and choose to live in a world constructed of your own opinions.
Is the world also flat because it never looked round from where your standing?
Reject science at your own peril. With any luck, your a smoker with a pack-a-day habit. Express yourself while you still can. But please don't confuse yourself with someone who understands the first thing about science.
And by all means, light up! Just don't do it where anyone else is around.
Here are more facts for you to reject as "biased".
The Dangers of Secondhand Smoke
allen ... I don't really CARE if second hand smoke can be proven to be dangerous. Growing up in a home where my three pack a day smoker dad did lots of that in the house ... I don't want to breathe it. If you aren't having an impact on others, no problem. But it was gross, and I think any law that prevents second hand smoke being forced on non smokers is entirely reasonable. If you own the property, I guess you should be able to set your own rules ... but, when I go to a concert, I don't have a choice of which venue to go to. Smokers ... are offensive to everyone who doesn't.
I just came across this article today about 2nd-hand smoke:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100251229/passive-smoking-another-of-the-nanny-states-big-lies/
Just came across this one, too:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tqh48d00/pdf
Post a Comment