To take part in discussions on talkSFU, please apply for membership (SFU email id required).

Smoking Ban on Campus

edited December 2007 in General
I made a thread about this a while ago before this but

Did anyone else read about that on the peak paper? I hope they actually do enforce it in convocation mall, if people want to smoke in front of the university who cares, but the common space should be smoke free.
«1

Comments

  • edited December 2007
    I read part of the article, but not all of it. I think its good too. The people they interviewed in that side panel of the article all seemed so dumb to me....none of them seemed to care about it, which i found odd.
  • edited December 2007
    i dont really notice ppl smoking on campus that much

    only place that i notice is right outside the library, by the no smoking sign

    only other places are the aq doors at one end, by the chem hall, and the other end, leading up the stairs heading towards the main bus stop
  • edited December 2007
    lol ive noticed them by the no smoking sign too.

    Yah, i think the library is the worst place. Its bad at the downtown campus cuz there are always a lot of people outside smoking by the front doors.
  • edited December 2007
    just have some designated smoking areas
    nothing super far though, but just an area people who hate smoke can avoid.
  • edited December 2007
    Yea, seriously. Why can't they just build a room specifically for people who want to smoke, then pipe all their bad fumes away from us?

    I especially dislike people who huff and puff while they're walking from one lecture to another. -- I don't like your smoke, ever consider that?
  • edited December 2007
    I suppose that people should be allowed to smoke if they want to....





    ....but i really hate it when im walking down the street and the person infront of me is smoking and the smoke is coming back into me and i have to try to dodge it and look dumb trying to do that.
  • edited December 2007
    so walk past them or stop for a bit so they get ahead, lol
  • edited December 2007
    Well obviously ive thought about that. Im usually in a hurry and they are usually walking pretty fast so that i cant pass them, or there are other people walking in the opposite way so i cant pass them.

    Its just very annoying having that smoke come back at me.
  • edited December 2007
    the entire principle is non smokers shouldnt have to walk past people all the time who smoke cause its their habit...legally I dont see how blowing smoke in someones face is anything short of assault, if you spit in someones face you can be charged with assault so why not smoke
  • edited December 2007
    yeah no one does it on purpose
    everyone who makes a big deal out of it think smokers are out there to blow smoke in everyones faces
    sure some might be, lol

    They have the right to smoke where it is allowed.
  • edited December 2007
    It is about time there is a total smoking ban on campus. I say this not because I am against smoking, but I am against how inconsiderate smokers are on campus. They never smoke only in their designated smoking area. Instead, they smoke right next to no smoking signs (ex: WMX entrances, libraries...) and smoke right outside doors where many people have to walk through. They also leave behind cigarette butts on the floor and stink up the place. Back in high school, our smokers smoke ONLY in the unofficial designated smoke pit and you will never find them smoke anywhere else. I am surprise how smokers lost all their honors and value now that they are up here.
  • edited December 2007
    I'd just like to send a big shout out to all the people who smoke next to the no smoking signs. I've never smoked a day in my life, but even I can see that you're fighting the good fight. Nothing's more annoying than a group of activist whiners passing stupid regulations.
  • edited December 2007
    triple, legally noone has the right to smoke, theres nothing in the constitution that says you have the right to smoke and endanger everyone elses health while youre at it. in Canada rights are given to reasonable extents, theres no absolute right to anything. theres no such thing as areas where people are allowed to smoke, just areas where its prohibited

    does it make it morally ok for people to smoke in groups twenty feet outside a hospital just cause theres no smoking restriction outside of that twenty feet.

    regardless of whether smokers dont do it on purpose or not its just inconsiderate in that situation
    a) its fair to assume all smokers know smoke is harmful to themselves and others
    b) its fair to assume they know they arent the only people in the world who breathe air while walking down crowded sidewalks and walk ways

    im not just someone on their high horse cause i dont like the smell of smoke, i have asthma and i really dont like my lungs constricting in response to smoke among many other things i try to reasonably avoid, i wont walk outside pulpmills or smoke stacks for my exercise and bitch about it, but i cant predict when someone is going to light a cigarette when walking in front of me

    i have nothing against smokers who want to smoke in areas where i can purposely avoid them, if i choose to walk by them knowing theyre smoking its my own fault, but when i want to get to class through convocation center on campus, or get somewhere in town by a sidewalk i shouldnt have to deal with it

    maybe im wrong though, if it turns out second hand smoke prolongs your life i take it all back
  • edited December 2007
    im not just someone on their high horse cause i dont like the smell of smoke, i have asthma and i really dont like my lungs constricting in response to smoke among many other things i try to reasonably avoid, i wont walk outside pulpmills or smoke stacks for my exercise and bitch about it, but i cant predict when someone is going to light a cigarette when walking in front of me
    And some people are allergic to peanuts. If we banned everything that was harmful to any percentage of the population, we would live in one boring society.

    Besides, cigarette smoke isn't that bad. It reminds me of Las Vegas.
  • edited December 2007
    i didnt say anything about banning smoking off the face of the planet, im talking about smoking in very public areas eg: sidewalks, walkways.

    if people want to smoke off to the side somewhere, or some place where i know smokers are going to congregate i dont have a problem avoiding it. just as a counter point publicly sold products have to provide information whether they contain nuts or not, otherwise face legal action when someone dies as a result of consuming said product, if i know some people are going to be smoking some places...i will avoid it

    further, if i ever see anyone on campus in the convocation center making peanut butter en masse I will be sure to start a scene, i could imagine the chaos of people starting peanut butter fights and throwing nuts at other people, one of those nuts even may end up in someones mouth or in contact with their skin
  • edited December 2007
    I said it before, I'll say it again: Second hand smoke is NOT dangerous. Look into how they make up (and they do make them up) those death numbers. It's nonsense. For second hand smoke to have any effect on you at all, you have to be locked in an isolation chamber with twenty smokers for eight hours a day for thirty years. The "it's hurting us!" argument is utter bull. It has an effect, but you have to be exposed to so much of it for such a long period of time that you'd have an easier time arguing that beautiful people endanger people's health by encouraging anorexia.

    I'm going to have to nominate "legally noone has the right to smoke" as the most aggravating comment of the decade. Followed closely by "theres nothing in the constitution that says you have the right to smoke."

    I mean, holy Jesus man. Please tell me there's some burried irony in there that I'm not detecting. It's absolutely acceptable to be against smoking, against smokers, and to say that smokers who go for a puff outside the library are inconsiderate jackasses. But to pass a regulation about it just pathetic.
  • edited December 2007
    ok does it say anywhere that you can't smoke?!?!!?
    bam!!

    yes, everyone who smokes on campus smokes right in front of the non smoking signs
    you guys are friggin morons
    i used to smoke, dont anymore, but when i did, i never did it in front of those signs.. therefore you guys are wrong! ha!
    so yeah, shut up.
  • edited December 2007
    I never claimed that inhaling someones smoke as I'm walking down campus gives me cancer, dont type words on my keyboard. Also I'm not the one who lobbied for hours to have smoking banned in public places either. Im just a reaper of the benefits of whoever did.
    Regardless of the claim that second hand smoke harms people is irrelevant, smokers can smoke all the want just dont force your habit on me when Im walking in between classes, I dont enjoy the smell, or the annoyance, I find it offending.
    I dont see how my comments are aggravating to anyone besides people who dont mind the smell or ambience of smoke. How would smokers feel if I bought cans of axe and decided Id spray it in their face every time I walked by them? I dont see how its any less offensive than second hand smoke.

    RE:Triple
    It says in the law many places that you can't smoke, in certain places. I'm also not attacking smokers who dont force other people to smoke with them, what Im attacking are inconsiderate people who force their offensive behaviour on other people, whether it be smoking, exposing themselves, their body odor, etc
  • edited December 2007
    Hmmm, I dont see anywhere that randomuser said that second hand smoke was the reason for not liking smokers (and their smoke) but more of how its very inconsiderate of them to be doing it in very public places.

    With that, I agree. I dont think they should be allowed to smoke outside doors that lead into the school or a restaurant or whatever. I think its very rude and inconsiderate to subject a non-smoker to smoke like that.

    However, I do think that smokers have a 'right' so to speak to smoke....although its a strange one. Its a very disgusting thing to do, but i suppose if they do it in an area that does not affect non-smokers at all, then its ok.

    However, here's my specific case:
    My bf's mom smokes (horribly so) and i hate it, of course. So i went over to his parents house with him for dinner one time. Now, i have been there several times in the past, but usually his mom was working and was not there. His dad does not smoke, but his mom does, and does it in her house too :/ Anyways, whatever, its her house, her business. So, I go over for dinner and both of his parents are there. So, they KNOW that I am a non-smoker and how much i HATE cigarettes and smoking....as Im sitting there watching TV waiting for dinner (bf was barbequing and there was nothing for me to do), his mom joins me and lights up not one, not two, but THREE cigarettes in the short time that we are sitting there watching TV. Like wtf??

    I think its just so rude to subject a non-smoker to that, imo. But then again, its NOT my house, its hers, so i suppose she has a right to do that....what do the rest of you think? My mom thought that since it was her house, she could do what she wanted, which is true. But i think that since she knows that i dont like smoke and cant tolerate it very well (i start coughing, feel like i cant breathe, and the smell makes me very very nauceous) that she shouldnt have done that with me sitting there.

    Anyways, it got so bad that i had to leave and go outside for fresh air. Nevertheless, im not going back to their house if his mom is going to be there....its nothing to do with her, i like her a lot, but i just cant tolerate the smoke :(
  • edited December 2007
    I never claimed that inhaling someones smoke as I'm walking down campus gives me cancer
    theres nothing in the constitution that says you have the right to smoke and endanger everyone elses health while youre at it.
    Hmmm...
    I dont see how my comments are aggravating
    I believe you. You don't see that your preferences are no more important than anyone elses. I believe you that you do not see this.
  • edited December 2007
    Morro;19395 said:
    I said it before, I'll say it again: Second hand smoke is NOT dangerous. Look into how they make up (and they do make them up) those death numbers. It's nonsense. For second hand smoke to have any effect on you at all, you have to be locked in an isolation chamber with twenty smokers for eight hours a day for thirty years. The "it's hurting us!" argument is utter bull. It has an effect, but you have to be exposed to so much of it for such a long period of time that you'd have an easier time arguing that beautiful people endanger people's health by encouraging anorexia.

    I'm going to have to nominate "legally noone has the right to smoke" as the most aggravating comment of the decade. Followed closely by "theres nothing in the constitution that says you have the right to smoke."

    I mean, holy Jesus man. Please tell me there's some burried irony in there that I'm not detecting. It's absolutely acceptable to be against smoking, against smokers, and to say that smokers who go for a puff outside the library are inconsiderate jackasses. But to pass a regulation about it just pathetic.
    Where'd you get that from, the scientists from Philip Morris?
    http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=wmd&q=carcinogens+in+second+hand+smoke&btnG=Search&meta=

    I'm not in the mood to read, so I only skimmed the titles. Seems somewhat damning to me.
  • edited December 2007
    Triple;19400 said:
    ok does it say anywhere that you can't smoke?!?!!?
    bam!!

    yes, everyone who smokes on campus smokes right in front of the non smoking signs
    you guys are friggin morons
    i used to smoke, dont anymore, but when i did, i never did it in front of those signs.. therefore you guys are wrong! ha!
    so yeah, shut up.
    Hey good for you that you didn't smoke in front of the signs, but walk by the afore mentioned places, and count how often you can a.) see people smoking and b.) smell the smoke linger after they're done

    One more place to throw in is the doors by Triple Os & Simon Cs/Triple Os. Not nearly as bad as some of the other places, but definitely still a fair bit of smokers around there.
  • edited December 2007
    As I said: second hand smoke can cause lung problems, as can car exhaust. But we don't freak out about walking on the sidewalk with cars going by. It's all about the exposure necessary to have any real chance of a negative effect.

    Also, correlational studies are not meaningful. "This person had a dad who was a smoker and got lung cancer!" means nothing. This person has never seen a cigarette and got lung cancer - so what? They concoct these numbers by essentially taking anyone who has come into contact with second hand smoke, and ascribing any and all lung or heart diseases that they get to that smoke. It's not convincing.

    As I said, multiple times now: Second hand smoke is SMOKE. Of course it's not good for you. But it's still not dangerous. In the same way that walking down the street can kill you if a car hits you, but I still wouldn't call it a dangerous activity. It's all about the probability.
  • edited December 2007
    I think the carcinogens are cancer causing, slightly worse than just smoke. Not sure, will read on this more after exams are over.

    Car exhaust is a by-product of ease of transportation. Whats the main purpose of smoking..?

    btw, I am 100% sure theres thousands of studies on 2nd hand smoke beyonds correlational studies.
  • edited December 2007
    sure, that still doesn't mean they don't exaggerate about it in the media.
    take drugs for example, they make it seem like you do cocaine once, your going to become a crackhead living on east hastings.
    I've done cocaine. How many times? Once.
    That was 2 years ago, and hey, I'm not a crackhead... sure I could be eventually, but it won't be from coke, lol.
  • edited December 2007
    Triple;19456 said:
    sure, that still doesn't mean they don't exaggerate about it in the media.
    take drugs for example, they make it seem like you do cocaine once, your going to become a crackhead living on east hastings.
    I've done cocaine. How many times? Once.
    That was 2 years ago, and hey, I'm not a crackhead... sure I could be eventually, but it won't be from coke, lol.
    How is this even relevant... had you brought up that marijuana is portrayed as a gateway drug in the media, fine thats a good point. IIRC, cocaine is 2nd to heroin in terms of addictiveness in the illegal drugs.
    Why do you continuously draw comparisons with yourself as a means of refuting a point? Like I said before, great good for you that you don't smoke by the library, that doesn't change the fact that tons of people do. Again, good for you that you're not a crackhead for trying out crack once two years ago, but for many people with lower self control or what have you, once really is all it takes to be hooked on cocaine, or heroin or meth. Seriously wow...
  • edited December 2007
    car companies and related have made an effort in reducing car exhaust (aircare/ techron/ hybrid cars).. i wish i can say that the same effort is given by the smoking industry.. plus cars are a vital means of transportation so in that sense.. car exhaust is inevitable.. on the other hand.. smoking is a choice and it is something and one can do or do without hence it is not a vitality.. but given some of the negative effects it has on human health.. most would prefer to to do without..

    that is not to say i agree to completely ban smoking.. i do believe every individual should have their own freedom of choice and if smoking is one of them that's fine with me.. but that choice should not jeopardize the choice of others.. like those who choose not to smoke.. so yes.. people should respect the signs and smoke in designated areas because i really hate waiting for a bus while inhaling second hand smoke.. i did not offer them a piece of my mind so don't offer me second hand smoke..
  • edited December 2007
    hey i'm just giving simple examples of where the media blows things out of proportion.
    or the people here saying every smoker smokes in front of the library.

    I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that it doesn't always happen.
  • edited December 2007
    Morro you can take my comments out of context and put them together to say anything you want, my original point is consideration, I dont think smoking is a right anyone has, not to say it should be banned although I really wouldnt mind, but people should be considerate about it as its not something they have to do.

    People should be able to smoke, but its not some fundamental right so it shouldnt infringe upon other peoples, is my whole point I was making with the legality. If you want to quote me saying all smokers should not be allowed to smoke anywhere then go ahead and Ill concede.

    As I said before how is me spraying axe in peoples faces any different than blowing second hand smoke in the air in a crowded area, maybe they dont mean to do it on purpose, but it should be obvious to them how air circulation works and that its going straight into my face if Im walking behind them.

    Its not like people are born smokers and im discriminating against some fundamental thing they cant change. I dont care if smokers dont want to quit smoking just dont blow it in my face when Im trying to get places where I cant easily avoid it. Im not one of those uppity people who think that by walking into a smokers pit or a smoking area in restaurant I can sue or start a civil rights movement.

    Just cause you can physically do something does that mean you should and have the right to.

    And triple I dont recall anyone saying all smokers smoke in front of the library, we acknowledged the fact there were or are considerate smokers like you who dont smoke in everyones business.
  • edited December 2007
    And in what context would you saying that "smoking endangers everyone else's health" not mean that you think that smoking endangers everyone else's health?

    Look, you saying that you don't think smoking is a right is quite simply insane. You start out having the right to do everything, automatically, and then those rights are taken away on a case-by-case basis. You don't start out with no rights, and then receive them one by one. Everyone has the right to do whateve the HELL they want, as long as it is not against the law. Try to understand that.
    Just cause you can physically do something does that mean you should and have the right to.
    Actually, it DOES mean you have the right to, unless it's specifically prohibited by law. That's what all that "free country" jive is about. You say it's not a "fundamental right." This shows you you do not understand what a fundamental right is. Your fundamental right is to do ANYTHING YOU WANT, up to and including smoking.

    Now: Is it inconsiderate to smoke in crowded outdoor areas? Sure. Is it reasonable for you to complain about it? Of course! You can say these people are assholes, and you might even be correct. But that's a far cry - a FAR CRY - passing a regulation against it. You can absolutely say that you think somebody else's actions are wrong. But you don't get to to tell them that they may not do what they want. You just don't.

    Again: Have your opinion, and share it. While I'm really not bothered by smoke myself, sure, I have no problem telling them to clear out of crowded areas. But this "there is no right to smoke" stuff is, honestly, utter stupidity.

Leave a Comment