(05-02-2017 02:14 AM)InspectorHound Wrote:  LOL - please let me know when thoughts and speech start forcing cancer-causing particles into other people's bodies

Because letting a few folks smoke around back by the dumpster is really going to taint your otherwise perfect health.

(05-02-2017 10:27 AM)geef Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 09:41 AM)Former Lurker Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 08:33 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 02:00 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  Mission accomplished for the smoke police. Food/drink police are next up awaiting orders. Thought and speech police are on deck....

What an inane leap.

Not inane at all; it's already happening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_Dri...n_Cap_Rule

Total nanny state (UC is a public institution) horseshit that a student can't enjoy a smoke or dip outdoors between classes.

Smoking has an adverse impact on the health of others. It's that simple.

A ban on soda portions and a soda tax, IMO, is silly. There we agree. I'm not sure how you can say a smoking ban in many public places nationally has led to one city controlling portion sizes on sodas, though.

Rath, my apologies for continue the shark leap. It makes me immeasurably pleased whenever I hear that phrase, though. Long live the Fonz.

Let's get real. An isolated smoking area has absolutely ZERO impact on the health of others. This goes far beyond forcing you to share a cubicle with a gal who smokes nonstop all day. This goes way beyond that.

(05-02-2017 09:41 AM)Former Lurker Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 08:33 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 02:00 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  Mission accomplished for the smoke police. Food/drink police are next up awaiting orders. Thought and speech police are on deck....

What an inane leap.

Not inane at all; it's already happening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_Dri...n_Cap_Rule

Total nanny state (UC is a public institution) horseshit that a student can't enjoy a smoke or dip outdoors between classes.

Yep. And don't ignore how Universities like Cal Berkely make it nearly impossible for conservative speakers like Milo or Coulter to speak on their campus.

They are probably tired of picking up cigarette butts. Because part of being a Freedom Fighter - aka a cigarette smoker - is the freedom to flick the butts wherever they want, but preferably directly beside the door they are about the enter.

Years ago I took an evening course at UC Blue Ash. The courtyard had a designated area for smokers, with recepticles for butts. That mattered none as dozens of butts littered the ground. I'm sure this is nothing more than these Freedom Fighters rebelling against the impending limitations on speech and thought!

(05-02-2017 11:09 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  They are probably tired of picking up cigarette butts. Because part of being a Freedom Fighter - aka a cigarette smoker - is the freedom to flick the butts wherever they want, but preferably directly beside the door they are about the enter.

Years ago I took an evening course at UC Blue Ash. The courtyard had a designated area for smokers, with recepticles for butts. That mattered none as dozens of butts littered the ground. I'm sure this is nothing more than these Freedom Fighters rebelling against the impending limitations on speech and thought!

I suppose calling out liberal hypocrisy on stereotyping would be appropriate here, but I'll keep it on topic. If the buildup of "dozens" of cigarette butts in the smokers's courtyard is the problem, then go ahead and tailor a rule to the actual problem behavior: enforce a ban on littering cigarette butts. In the alternative, a few well worded announcements and a sign would probably do the trick with a lot less effort all around...

I can somewhat understand the smoking ban, somewhat (and I am a lifelong nonsmoker).

But what is the justification for the ban on dip or chewing tobacco? How do those habits inflict cancer causing particles on others?

And what about e-cigs? Heck most of the people I see using e-cigs usually have them filled with some type of cannibus product.

What about nicotine patches and gum?

I echo Mark's misgivings about the statewide smoking ban in restaurants, while equally enjoying and appreciating the smoke-free experience that has resulted from the ban.

But I do feel that it is an inappropriate over reach to ban dip and chew tobacco.

Are they soon going to ban the smoking of wacky-tobacky in the dorms?

(05-02-2017 11:28 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 11:09 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  They are probably tired of picking up cigarette butts. Because part of being a Freedom Fighter - aka a cigarette smoker - is the freedom to flick the butts wherever they want, but preferably directly beside the door they are about the enter.

Years ago I took an evening course at UC Blue Ash. The courtyard had a designated area for smokers, with recepticles for butts. That mattered none as dozens of butts littered the ground. I'm sure this is nothing more than these Freedom Fighters rebelling against the impending limitations on speech and thought!

I suppose calling out liberal hypocrisy on stereotyping would be appropriate here, but I'll keep it on topic. If the buildup of "dozens" of cigarette butts in the smokers's courtyard is the problem, then go ahead and tailor a rule to the actual problem behavior: enforce a ban on littering cigarette butts. In the alternative, a few well worded announcements and a sign would probably do the trick with a lot less effort all around...

I'm not the one who brought up the impingement of Freedom argument, so don't pin that on me. And calling something "liberal" does not an argument make.

Maybe UC wants to curb smoke breaks, because we know smokers are entitled to for breaks exclusively to sate their habit.

I think your proposal for cigarette butt police is not only cost ineffective, but rather unenforceable given the cultural norms of smokers to flick wherever convenient.

(05-02-2017 11:44 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 11:28 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 11:09 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  They are probably tired of picking up cigarette butts. Because part of being a Freedom Fighter - aka a cigarette smoker - is the freedom to flick the butts wherever they want, but preferably directly beside the door they are about the enter.

Years ago I took an evening course at UC Blue Ash. The courtyard had a designated area for smokers, with recepticles for butts. That mattered none as dozens of butts littered the ground. I'm sure this is nothing more than these Freedom Fighters rebelling against the impending limitations on speech and thought!

I suppose calling out liberal hypocrisy on stereotyping would be appropriate here, but I'll keep it on topic. If the buildup of "dozens" of cigarette butts in the smokers's courtyard is the problem, then go ahead and tailor a rule to the actual problem behavior: enforce a ban on littering cigarette butts. In the alternative, a few well worded announcements and a sign would probably do the trick with a lot less effort all around...

I'm not the one who brought up the impingement of Freedom argument, so don't pin that on me. And calling something "liberal" does not an argument make.

You are the liberal who stereotypes all smokers as litterers. But I digress.

Quote:Maybe UC wants to curb smoke breaks, because we know smokers are entitled to for breaks exclusively to sate their habit.

I'll indulge you nonsense and suggest banning smoke breaks (along with similar breaks) if that's the real "problem".

Quote:I think your proposal for cigarette butt police is not only cost ineffective, but rather unenforceable given the cultural norms of smokers to flick wherever convenient.

More stereotypes. If you think you can cost effectively enforce a ban on smoking, then you can enforce a ban on littering just as cost effectively. Or you could take the common sense approach: make a few announcements and a few cheap signs asking smokers to please use the provided receptacles for their butts.

(05-01-2017 08:15 PM)crex043 Wrote:  This policy doesn't seem very inclusive.

This.

It's a lifestyle choice that people make. It's disgusting, but so is chewing sunflower seeds and bubble gum. It'll end your life earlier, but so will sugar and saturated fats.

Fun fact: my brother got a PhD in microbiology at Big Ten school, and a couple of his professors said that second-hand smoking has not been proven to cause cancer. There's some evidence which has been widely publicized, but it's far from conclusive. The only reason doctors talk about second-hand smoking so much is that first hand-smoking is such a big public health problem that they're willing to do shady things to limit it. And the only legal way to limit smoking is to claim that it harms others.

Going smoke free on campus is directly related to health care costs. I'm confident UC got a break on employee health insurance for making this move.

It's a cost-based decision. Can't get more conservative than that.

Smoking on UC Campus
Brings up a memory of my Freshman year, fall qtr. 1968. (besides watching Greg Cook) Psych. 101 in Wilson Aud. Remember the prof. parked right behind Wilson as I saw him get out of his Jaguar XKE.
During one lecture this prof asked for student volunteers who wished to stop smoking. Brought them up on stage, hypnotized them, then made the suggestion they would no longer be able to stand nicotine or smoke. He brought them out of the hypnotic state and had them all try to light up and none of them could. Don't know if it was a plant or the suggestion was lasting, but I've always remembered that incident. Too bad I don't remember anything else about the class. Well.....maybe one. Going down on Probasco St. to partake in some Psych. majors experiment. Seems like that was part of the deal of the class.

(05-02-2017 12:43 PM)bearcat72 Wrote:  Smoking on UC Campus
Brings up a memory of my Freshman year, fall qtr. 1968. (besides watching Greg Cook) Psych. 101 in Wilson Aud. Remember the prof. parked right behind Wilson as I saw him get out of his Jaguar XKE.
During one lecture this prof asked for student volunteers who wished to stop smoking. Brought them up on stage, hypnotized them, then made the suggestion they would no longer be able to stand nicotine or smoke. He brought them out of the hypnotic state and had them all try to light up and none of them could. Don't know if it was a plant or the suggestion was lasting, but I've always remembered that incident. Too bad I don't remember anything else about the class. Well.....maybe one. Going down on Probasco St. to partake in some Psych. majors experiment. Seems like that was part of the deal of the class.

Experiment or "experiment"

This is a trend at a lot of companies I visit for work anymore (manufacturing companies). You're no longer allowed to smoke anywhere on their property (including your own car in the parking lot). When the break bell rings people dash to either their cars to drive off the property or make a mad dash outside the fence.

(05-02-2017 01:41 PM)Crewdogz Wrote:  This is a trend at a lot of companies I visit for work anymore (manufacturing companies). You're no longer allowed to smoke anywhere on their property (including your own car in the parking lot). When the break bell rings people dash to either their cars to drive off the property or make a mad dash outside the fence.

Same at my company. It's entirely insurance driven to combat higher premiums driven by the ACA. The employees either pay a higher premium to remain a "smoker" or sign an affidavit that says they aren't a smoker to reduce the premium.

Many sign the affidavit, smoke off-site at lunch, hose themselves down with a hefty dose of Febreeze, and return to the office.

(05-02-2017 06:32 PM)crex043 Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 01:41 PM)Crewdogz Wrote:  This is a trend at a lot of companies I visit for work anymore (manufacturing companies). You're no longer allowed to smoke anywhere on their property (including your own car in the parking lot). When the break bell rings people dash to either their cars to drive off the property or make a mad dash outside the fence.

Same at my company. It's entirely insurance driven to combat higher premiums driven by the ACA. The employees either pay a higher premium to remain a "smoker" or sign an affidavit that says they aren't a smoker to reduce the premium.

Many sign the affidavit, smoke off-site at lunch, hose themselves down with a hefty dose of Febreeze, and return to the office.

An Ohio State study concluded that each smoker costs a company an additional $6,000 per year; the largest chunk of that was smoking breaks.

(05-02-2017 06:32 PM)crex043 Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 01:41 PM)Crewdogz Wrote:  This is a trend at a lot of companies I visit for work anymore (manufacturing companies). You're no longer allowed to smoke anywhere on their property (including your own car in the parking lot). When the break bell rings people dash to either their cars to drive off the property or make a mad dash outside the fence.

Same at my company. It's entirely insurance driven to combat higher premiums driven by the ACA. The employees either pay a higher premium to remain a "smoker" or sign an affidavit that says they aren't a smoker to reduce the premium.

Many sign the affidavit, smoke off-site at lunch, hose themselves down with a hefty dose of Febreeze, and return to the office.

Yep. My company actually stopped hiring smokers a few years ago (except for in Kentucky where there are actually smoker employment protection laws on the books). The argument is always that smokers drive up health costs, take more time off work due to health issues, and on breaks. I wonder when they will finally apply the same logic to fat people who miss even more time off work and are need more medical treatment?

(05-03-2017 08:20 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 06:32 PM)crex043 Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 01:41 PM)Crewdogz Wrote:  This is a trend at a lot of companies I visit for work anymore (manufacturing companies). You're no longer allowed to smoke anywhere on their property (including your own car in the parking lot). When the break bell rings people dash to either their cars to drive off the property or make a mad dash outside the fence.

Same at my company. It's entirely insurance driven to combat higher premiums driven by the ACA. The employees either pay a higher premium to remain a "smoker" or sign an affidavit that says they aren't a smoker to reduce the premium.

Many sign the affidavit, smoke off-site at lunch, hose themselves down with a hefty dose of Febreeze, and return to the office.

Yep. My company actually stopped hiring smokers a few years ago (except for in Kentucky where there are actually smoker employment protection laws on the books). The argument is always that smokers drive up health costs, take more time off work due to health issues, and on breaks. I wonder when they will finally apply the same logic to fat people who miss even more time off work and are need more medical treatment?

I never pictured you working for a liberal company...

A quarter to one third of adult Americans are obese, and two thirds are overweight. How do you define fat? And are you willing to put most of this board out of work?

Geez, I can remember when the cigarette companies used to give away free four-packs at the entrance to the grill at the student union. Of course, I happily availed myself of their largesse when I was young and stupid, but gave up the habit/addiction forty years ago.

I applaud the decision to declare the campus smoke-free. Where I live now, in western Colorado, few people smoke, and it's always jarring to return to Cincy and see how many folks still huff and puff on those nasty things.

Tobacco-free, kudos... But, not POT-free, right?