The Great American Smokeout
November 19, 2009
11am-2pm
Commons Mainstreet
Join Campus Efforts to Address Smoking and University Health Services for the Great American Smokeout!
Are you thinking about quitting smoking but not sure you’re ready to take the plunge? Maybe the Great American Smokeout is for you. It’s an opportunity to join with literally millions of other smokers in saying “no thanks” to cigarettes for 24 hours.
The rules are simple: You just quit smoking for the 24 hours of the Smokeout. The wonderful thing is that you won’t be alone; you can swap advice, jokes, and groans with the other “quitters,” and nonsmokers. Even if you don’t go on to quit permanently, you will have learned that you can quit for a day and that many others around you are taking the step too.
Win free prizes and learn some great info!
Vendors and Sponsors include:
Campus Efforts to Address Smoking
Peer Health Advocates
Baltimore County Health Department
Freedom Alliance
Resident Student Association
UMBC Facilities Management
American Cancer Society
UMBC Relay for Life Sign-up and more!
Contact Michael Dark at mdark1@umbc.edu for more info or to become a vendor or sponsor.
uu_stringer articles are submitted through our submit an article link by readers like you. Thanks for your submissions!
Utterly incomprehensible the University tolerates such boisterous individuals. Instead of organizing these knee jerk activities, the CEAS should be working on getting ashtrays back outside of every entrance.
@ The Individual
Do some research before you condemn CEAS and their efforts. The UMBC chapter of the CEAS is looking at the smoking policy from both sides of the issue and may very well be a good place for smokers to turn to to discuss frustrations with the current policy. I’m adamantly against the university’s “unofficial” stance on smoking right now and am a smoker’s rights advocate, and CEAS was more than willing to engage on the issue…
If anyone takes issue with the event or CEAS’ efforts, ESPECIALLY SMOKERS, I encourage you to contact Michael Dark (mdark1@umbc.edu) to complain or give comments. Or post them here; I’m sure he will read this. CEAS is looking for feedback from both smokers and non-smokers about the issue.
@minteh.
I find your comments to be a big obtuse. Every year, this event takes place. Every year, it doesn’t benefit smokers one bit. How is that being egalitarian?
@ minteh
I have a bone to pick with CEAS for their hand in banning tobacco sales on campus and spearheading the passage of the current smoking policy in previous years, but if they’re willing to help out smokers now, that’s great. I was honestly expecting them to come out swinging for a total smoking ban sometime soon.
@ The Individual
The purpose of the “Great American Smokeout,” as I understand it, is to encourage people to quit smoking, not necessarily to benefit smokers. They have every right to hold such events if they want to; it’s only when they start lobbying for anti-smoking policies on campus that I have problems with CEAS.
@ SS.
Yes, that was sarcasm coming through on my end, in response to the poster saying that the CEAS helps both smokers and nonsmokers. What I have an issue with is the theme of all their events: I have not once seen them hosting a smokeathon. To say they’re trying to help smokers, too, is a lot of smoke and mirrors.
I will host an event to help smokers, it will be called “Get the F*** out of my way” with a follow up event called “If you are a big enough a**hole to smoke by a door you better pray it doesn’t come off the hinges”
Why would anyone feel that they deserve to have the right to be able to smoke outside of an entryway or be accommodated with ash trays? The only people that think they should be accommodated like that are narcissists or people so goddam arrogant that they would be in-courteous enough to blow smoke in front of the only entrance or exit a student or faculty has to leave a building. How do you do something like that and just not feel like the biggest douchebag for causing bodily harm to other people just trying to get around campus? Is it a lack of caring or are you too fat and lazy to walk somewhere where you wouldnt be poisoning people.
I could care less what you chose to do to yourself, just don’t have your actions affect others in a negative manner, especially when its something you can help. And if you smoke and bitch about health care reform I hope your teeth fall out and you have to gum food for the rest of your life.
Ashtrays should be put back outside of buildings so that people who are smoking on their way to class have somewhere to put the cigarette butt before they go inside instead of just throwing it on the ground. It’s outrageous the way smokers have been pilloried for littering campus… it’s like stealing everyone’s trash cans and then complaining when you see garbage bags piled in the street (oh yeah… UMBC did that too).
@Anoid.
You are quite the reflection of the grander, American society. We can sit here and argue about second hand smoke all day long. We can do so, because the results of said studies are inconclusive. You can post a million and one articles how it’s bad and I can post a million and one articles why it isn’t. Sure, smoking isn’t the best thing in the world, but to say second hand smoke is a major health issue is a misnomer.
It amazes me that one can’t smoke in class, yet people infected with the flu, coughing their lungs out, and snorting snot like a pig is somehow tolerated.
@ A.noid
lmao i hope i never meet you man, you’re a fuckin prick
@a.noid
You’re an insufferable moron. I guess it just so happens that the only awnings available most places on campus happen to be in doorways.
What happens in the rain? Are we supposed to be subjected to standing in the rain?
BECAUSE SOMEBODY DOES SOMETHING YOU DISLIKE, NEGATES THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS AMIRITE???
@The Individual: The Great American Smokeout has benefited many smokers throughout the years that it has been going on. We have many students and faculty/staff who come to the event because they do want to quit smoking. I had one person who has been a two pack a day smoker for the past 20 years say they were finally ready to quit. This is a national event that many schools and organizations hold and we do not force smokers to quit smoking. We offer them educational materials and the contact information for cessation services should they request it. The reason we do not hold “smokeathons” is because we do not encourage tobacco use. We provide the educational aspect of the effects of tobacco and ask smokers to consider quitting, but do not demand it. Secondhand smoke may not be a major health issue when compared to heart disease, cancer, and stroke (the top 3 causes of death in the US) but there is research that links secondhand smoke to these causes.
@minteh: You are correct that we are looking at the smoking policy from both sides of the issue. We see the benefits of a smoke-free campus: no need for cigarette butt receptacles, less smoking refuse on the ground, decreased costs for Facilities Management and Grounds workers, and less secondhand smoke. But we also see a major benefit of a smoking campus: retention of students, faculty, and staff who smoke. CEAS has only the best intentions for the entire campus, our issue lies with tobacco, not the user.
@SS: CEAS did have input into the banning of tobacco sales on campus but was not the main voice in this discussion. The Faculty Senate at the time had great concerns and while their first attempt at voting on this was a denial of the ban, they readdressed the issue of their own accord and accepted the ban. Concerning the smoking policy, CEAS did lead this effort with support from many offices at UMBC. While the policy can sometimes be vague and needs to be readdressed, Dr. Hrabowski is in favor of a complete ban of smoking on campus. You have understood the point of the Great American Smokeout correctly in that we encourage smokers who would like to quit and we believe that if a smoker quits smoking; that can be beneficial to the person’s health. The reason ashtrays were removed from the entrances to buildings is because it is against the policy to smoke along academic corridor and at the commons patio because of the secondhand smoke effects. I do not see the University revoking the current policy and thus ashtrays most likely will not be placed near entrances. Lastly, littering is certainly not the fault of smokers alone. There are many people, including non-smokers, who litter various types of trash on the ground. Perhaps everyone, smokers and non-smokers, should be more environmentally friendly.
@A.NOID: I understand your frustrations highly, but attacking smokers and being vulgar will be beneficial to no one. I agree that smokers can choose to do what they want to their own bodies by smoking, but smoking in an entryway does cause secondhand smoke harm. A study conducted at UMBC in April of 2005 by an outside expert concluded that you must be about 23 feet from a source of 1-2 smokers in an entryway or similar space in order to approach levels of air similar to air away from any smoke plumes. (www.repace.com; recent reports to find the entire study.)
@lolwut: I wouldn’t want to stand in the rain or snow either if I was to be outside. But there are alternatives to awnings at entryways, such as umbrellas. You make the point that you would not like to be subjected to the rain, but non-smokers would also like to not be subjected to secondhand smoke. No ones human rights should be negated, that goes for smokers and non-smokers.
@ CEAS
I believe you misread my statement. It is not against the smoking policy to smoke while walking outside of academic row. Many students like to smoke on the way to class, and while there used to be ashtrays at the entrances to academic row, in front of buildings, and at various other points along walkways, those are now gone. Several of these missing ashtrays were not on academic row or within 20 feet of a building entrance. Yes, smoking within 20 feet of an entrance is against the policy, but where is someone who smoked on the way somewhere supposed to put his cigarette butt when he arrives, if there is no ashtray? The number of ashtrays in residential areas has also been reduced, and the ones left are not maintained. This is why there are cigarette butts everywhere. I did not mean to make this a general statement on people littering, I meant to point out specifically that the amount of smoking-related trash on campus has increased significantly since the ashtrays were removed. The solution is simple.
You also mention the health effects of secondhand smoke several times. Every study that has been presented to me by anti-smoking advocates has only dealt with the effects of long-term exposure to secondhand smoke in enclosed spaces like bars and private residences, not outdoors. Do you have any research showing adverse effects on otherwise healthy people caused by momentary exposure to secondhand smoke outdoors?
Your response to lolwut is concerning - “…there are alternatives to awnings at entryways, such as umbrellas.” This, to me, indicates an indifference to the concerns of smokers and a desire to just shove them off into a corner with no regard for their comfort or convenience. If UMBC wants smokers away from building entrances, there need to be other covered outdoor areas in which people can smoke. You say your issue is with tobacco, not the user, but by advocating restrictive policies regarding smoking, you are creating an issue with the user. If you’re not accepting of other people’s lifestyle choices, you’re not really being accepting of them as people, either. I’m glad to hear CEAS is concerned about the negative effects of a smoking ban, but I still sense a disconnect here. While CEAS may not have been the “main voice” in ending tobacco sales on campus, your organization was unequivocally in favor of it. At this point, some amount of smoking regulation is clearly necessary to keep everyone happy, but advocating for policies that do nothing more than inconvenience smokers leaves me suspicious. There is a very big difference between holding an event inviting people to quit smoking and trying to put up roadblocks to people smoking in hopes that they will give up and quit.
@SS: I understand that smoking is permitted outside of academic row. While smokers may smoke while walking from their vehicles or residence halls, it should still be up to them as a member of the UMBC community to not litter and find an ashtray. I understand the concern of having to go out of the way or being late somewhere in order to find an ashtray. But that is the point we are at because there are limited ashtrays around campus. As far as the issue of limited or unkempt ashtrays, Facilities Management would be the office you would want to speak with and voice your concerns to.
The study that I referenced in my previous post is concerning secondhand smoke in outdoor areas, between the MP and Biology Buildings, the Commons Patio near the entrance at LH1, and at other various points on that Patio. Each of these instances is outdoors but near an entryway, except for the other various points on the Patio which are not near an entryway. The researcher writes, “Each of these figures shows levels (of secondhand smoke pollution) as high as 100 to 150 micrograms per cubic meter outdoors in proximity to smokers, indicating that the air is in the unhealthy or Code Red range.” (p. 9) You would have to be at least 23 feet away from a smoker in order to not detect any smoke and at 13 feet away would reach irritating levels. The Code Red range referring to the US Environmental Protection Agency guideline for reporting of daily air quality. The study also brought up concerns of smoke being inducted into a building as persons enter or depart a doorway in proximity to smokers.
Regarding my response to lolwut, I had no bad intentions towards the comfort and convenience of smokers. But using an umbrella while outside in the rain is a common practice among many people, is it not? I did not intend the use of an umbrella as some sort of punishment towards smokers who would like to smoke outside during inclement weather. As far as an outdoor covered area for smokers to use, that’s another issue to bring up with Facilities Management as they handle all concerns regarding the grounds and anything being permanently placed there. We apologize for creating issues with the users of tobacco products throughout the course of our efforts and we respect the lifestyle of those who choose to smoke, so why not respect the lifestyle of those who do not? We do not intend to steal your cigarettes and tell you to never smoke again, so why should some smokers pollute a non-smokers clean air in a space that they are prohibited to smoke in? Yes, CEAS was in favor of ending tobacco sales on campus, but we were not the only group to do so. We do not look at the smoking policy as an intentional roadblock in an attempt to force smokers to give up and quit. It is merely a policy in place to try and protect the health of non-smokers. There are inconveniences for smokers associated with the policy but there are also inconveniences for non-smokers with regards to short term and long term health effects from the secondhand smoke of a smoker.
@ CEAS
The number of ashtrays on campus is actually not that limited - there is a massive pile of concrete ashtrays that used to be all over campus behind the facilities management warehouse. I have been in touch with the SGA about the smoking policy (they have been very receptive to student concerns on this issue so far) and mentioned the removal of these ashtrays to them, so I believe they will investigate the reasons for this as part of their overall evaluation of the smoking policy. My guess at this point is that the university administration, which has shown itself to be indifferent to smokers at best and hostile to them at worst, took the liberty of removing them either for aesthetic reasons or to discourage smoking, both of which would be inappropriate, but I am looking forward to hearing concrete answers on why this was done.
The study you cite is interesting, but does not indicate any of the health effects commonly associated with secondhand smoke. Research indicating that secondhand smoke increases risks of cancer, heart disease, etc. addresses not only the amount of smoke in the air, but the crucial factors of frequency and duration, and measure enclosed spaces. Someone may walk through a “Code Red zone” as they pass a smoker outside, but that’s not going to give them cancer.
Also, I understand CEAS was not the only organization to support banning tobacco sales on campus, but this thread is about CEAS, and since the question of whether or not the organization is hostile to smokers has been raised, I would like to know what the reasoning behind that stance was. If it was not an attempt to discourage people from smoking, what was it?
@ CEAS.
I am a former UMBC student, currently studying law at another university.
I would welcome an actual discussion on the actual effects of second hand smoke. To say it is a known “problem” is a misnomer. Again, if the University wants to have an actual discussion on the matter, then I welcome it. To ostracize a group of society, because it is the current, social zeitgeist is a major oversight on the part of CEAS and any administration that supports such an action.
By the way, it should be noted that my undergraduate career at UMBC, before going to graduate school, was spent as a sociology major. I know quite a bit more than most on here, when it comes to statistical significance. Again, if CEAS and the Administration would welcome a scientific inquiry into the matter, instead of propagating current trends, then I would be more than willing to participate in such a matter.
By the way, I have no need to hear your studies or statistics. I do not lament you with my studies, so let’s leave that alone for another, appropriate time and place.
Have the sand to flat out say, we are banning smoking, because we find smokers to be a disturbance to the sanctity of the campus, for you do not care for the smell.
The only harmful effects of second hand smoke is the personal injury you inflict upon yourself, because you have it so built up in your head that second hand smoke is bad.
@SS: Within the study, the researcher states “Moreover, secondhand smoke (SHS) causes a number of acute symptoms (eye, nose, and throat irritation, headaches, dizziness, and nausea) and chronic diseases (lung and nasal sinus cancer and heart disease)…levels of irritation would begin at 4 meters from the source.” This being based on the levels of respirable particles detected during the study at various distances from a source. It is not to say that exposure to SHS would immediately cause a chronic disease or acute symptom but it increases the risks, especially acute symptoms in asthmatics.
I was not a member of CEAS nor a student at UMBC at the time when banning tobacco sales was being considered, but the advisor at the time stated that “they feel the OTC store is exploiting the student body as well as furthering the advertising goals of tobacco companies.” It was an attempt to protect students from the advertising that tobacco companies throw at people ages 17-25 because once you hook someone at that age, addiction is hard to escape. At the time the Retriever Weekly wrote, “Currently, the only place to purchase tobacco on campus is the OTC store located below the bookstore in the commons, where cigarettes are sold with a considerable markup.” Yes, CEAS had its own reasons to support the ban but there were also financial reasons that the OTC was charging students much more than outside vendors.
@The Individual: If the University at some point comes to the discussion of a smoke-free campus I’m sure that the effects of secondhand smoke would be included in such a discussion. If you would not call it a problem though, what would you label it as? CEAS does not intend to ostracize smokers, we have had and do have members within the organization that are smokers with valuable opinions. Smokers can smoke, we just ask for them to be polite and follow the current policy while offering them help should they want to quit. Should the University decide to go smoke-free, that would not be the decision of CEAS alone, as the SGA is already talking about such a matter with input from all sides.
I too am a Sociology major and understand the importance of statistical significance. The University once before had an outside group come onto campus to conduct scientific research into the measurements of outdoor air pollution from secondhand smoke and at what levels irritations would occur from such. I have not lamented you with studies, I only provided legitimate information that was intended for SS who asked for such information, you may disregard them if you would like to do so. It is in all honesty that we would not be in support of banning smoking because of the smell. The smell itself does not cause any harm, it is the reactions from the secondhand smoke particles that are of issue. Asthma attacks and other respiratory diseases that are irritated from secondhand smoke do not come from the smell itself but from the respirable particles within the smoke that irritate the nasal and respiratory tracts. I have it in my head that secondhand smoke is bad because there is research that shows it and I myself have experienced acute physical symptoms from such exposure. A smoker may not experience such symptoms because of the built up tolerance to the smoke because of smoking.
@ CEAS
What is “levels of irritation would begin at 4 meters from the source” supposed to mean, and where does it come from? Is it referring to asthmatics? Typical people? I have never known a nonsmoker who experiences “irritation” or “acute symptoms” while standing next to other smokers (even those who hate smoking), much less from being four meters away from one. Apparently this is based on particle counts in the air, but the conclusions drawn from it seem to have little correlation to reality. Furthermore, I find it hard to believe Repace is an impartial source on secondhand smoke studies considering his website has No Smoking logos plastered all over it.
Since you were not there at the time, my comments on the tobacco sales ban have no bearing on CEAS’s current activities, but the reasoning of preventing “exploitation” of students is appalling. I can only read that as the university trying to play parent to adult students, and I’m sure we will see more of the same in the future. In pushing for a campus smoking ban, I would not be at all surprised to see an administrator come out and posit that discouraging students from smoking is good for them in an attempt to garner support. As far as current decisions, my understanding is that the administration is unhappy with the status quo and wants to ban smoking, but has given the issue to the SGA to work out before they take any independent action. The SGA seems to be focused on fine-tuning the current policy to be more accommodating to all at this point, and from what I’ve seen, I I think they will be able to work something out. I have offered them my input and will continue to do so as the situation develops. If the administration at some point decides to step over the SGA and ban smoking, then I’d be more inclined to blame Hrabowski and upper administration, who appear to have already made up their minds, than CEAS, unless CEAS started lobbying for a ban.
@ CEAS.
You said, “I have it in my head that second hand smoke is bad because there is research that shows it and I myself have experienced acute physical symptoms from such exposure.”
Again, you are arguing my point, which is why this is not the place to discuss your supposed evidence. I know second hand smoke is not bad for a person. I know this from personal evidence, from actual research that has concluded such, and from research that has concluded otherwise, but failed to prove significance or was based on misrepresentation.
Let me ask you this question: if you have two studies that are replicating the same experiment and both studies found different results, what would we determine the implications to be? What you have done is taken one result, one misrepresentation of the results, one reconstruction of the results, etc., and have twisted those “results” to your favor, because it is the popular opinion, and your opinion, to do so.
What you’re doing is fundamentally flawed. You can sit here and say that that CEAS cares about smokers, but repeatably, in this thread, you have made claims to the contrary, because you are allowing yourself to deliberately view the situation through smoke colored glasses.
How about this, I will give the CEAS a presentation on the reality of the situation at your next meeting? Of course, you won’t, because you don’t want to discuss the facts. You just want to retreat back to your moral high ground, with botched statistics, and keep mentioning the same thing a million times over. When someone doesn’t want to discuss the cold, hard facts, then they don’t want their personal morals to be challenged.
@The Individual, if you ever want to meet I purchased a Crown at a local fast food establishment for you, because you are the KING of all the IDIOTS.
http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ucm171683.htm
There is my researched proof, if you want a picture of a healthy lung and one taken from a body that smoked all their life i can get that too. You are a MORON for believing what you believe. And that link is cold hard facts. Also havnt you noticed that the maryland courts have banned smoking in bars and restaurants over the past year because it is bad for the overall HEALTH of people who chose not to damage their bodies.
@Anyone who knows me knows who this is
When do you want to have lunch, because i don’t think you would ever say that to my face.
@ A.NOID
Say something useful, or say nothing at all. Your link provides the most generic tobacco information that has been known for over fifty years, and says nothing about secondhand smoke, much less outdoors. Also, Maryland courts did not ban smoking in bars and restaurants; the state legislature passed a law. It’s too bad you weren’t aware that our court system isn’t in the business of crafting legislation.
lololol at this A.NOID guy, do one thing that pisses him off and he blows up, call him a name and he becomes a tuf guy
bring it
It’s amazing that the very same people who are the first ones out of the gate to talk about how society victimizes certain populations are the very first people to use government research to prove their justifications for social control. Talk about ironic.
@SS: The levels of irritation refer to the amount of secondhand smoke particles in the air that reach high enough levels at a minimum of 4 meters away from a source to begin causing eye, throat, and nasal irritation in otherwise healthy individuals. Not all non-smokers are willing to say that their friend who is a smoker is causing such irritations with secondhand smoke but that’s another story delving into the social repercussions of smoking. Repace has devoted his scientific studies to secondhand smoke so while he may be against smoking personally, this may be because of the results he has witnessed from his studies. I cannot attest to what he thinks so I won’t make any further assumptions.
I have also been in contact with the SGA and have heard that they are making some progress as to their decisions. A fine tuning of the current policy is greatly needed as the original writers of it were a little vague in some parts. If they can make the policy more accommodating for all then that is the most favorable decision as far as we are concerned.
@The Individual: As far as whether secondhand smoke is bad or not, there will be no middle ground. You see it as not bad and we see it as otherwise, nothing will change about that.
Regarding the two experiments, if both researchers have differing results, there is probably some issue with the experimental design. How those results are interpreted is up to the researchers but hopefully they interpret the results as to what they really show.
If you would like to provide a presentation and have people discuss the issue with you then that is perfectly fine. We welcome any voice with an opinion, regardless of what that opinion might be. You can present your facts and we can give you ours.
What has made the information I’ve given false and botched? Just because you disagree with it or do you have some other information that can specifically prove it otherwise?
@ CEAS “Not all non-smokers are willing to say that their friend who is a smoker is causing such irritations with secondhand smoke but that’s another story delving into the social repercussions of smoking.”
No, I didn’t mean that. I seriously doubt that every non-smoker experiences irritation while within four meters of a smoker. I have been in such situations many times myself. Is the study referring to “irritation” to be some sort of miniscule effect that the subject doesn’t necessarily feel, or do they mean “irritation” in the sense that most people mean, as in feeling uncomfortable? If CEAS is not in favor of a campus-wide smoking ban, then I have no issue with your organization as it stands now, but I can’t help but think Repace has an agenda and his studies draw questionable conclusions.
@ SS.
I am done with address CEAS, as every study I post, he’ll try to refute in some insignificant way based off his own misrepresentation of the smoking question. I have tried to talk with such people and the only discussion that arises from such a conversation is the same simple minded, retreating back to propaganda tactics that are so prevalent on college campuses. It really makes one wonder where the free thinkers ran off to, if they were ever there.
If you think CEAS is not calling for, or supporting, a total tobacco ban on campus, then you’re delusional. Numerous times, he has blabbered on about particular toxins, no safe levels of exposure, “scientific evidence”, etc. If you think an organization is going to tout such an opinion, then say, we feel smokers should be allowed to smoke on campus, you have another thing coming. Notice how all the complaints of smokers have been met with, you should direct your feedback to Joe Sixpack or Suzzie Soccermom. Really, a productive, representative organization.
Funny, how when the vocal minority stood up and went on about banning tobacco sales, limiting smoking areas, etc, I never once heard these organization say, you should direct your complaints to Facilities Management. No, and no again. They did everything they could, minus blockading the campus, to make sure that tobacco use was limited. You’re not dealing with rational people here, man.
See the forest from the trees, man.
@ The Individual
I’m watching carefully. I know CEAS’s track record, but right now they’re saying a smoking ban isn’t the best idea. Is an outdoor ban too far even for an anti-smoking organization? I hope so. If not, then I’ll do whatever I can to stop them.
@SS.
I applaud your passion in all the matters you post and you are one of the few people on here that I actually value, in terms of opinions, conversations, etc.
With that being said, you should be aware that Towson University already passed a smoking ban on their campus, restricting students/faculty from even smoking in their cars. The ban goes into effect sometime next year. This will start hitting the other, Maryland universities in a matter of months.
CEAS is not just an acronym that was invented to be clever. It’s there for an outright cease and desist on tobacco usage, on campus.
Well, if UMBC decides to ban smoking on campus, I’m ready to go to war on this issue. Hope there are others who think the same way
Yeah, Towson was brought up when I talked to the SGA. If I remember right, the news there was that Towson’s administration just decided to go that way and didn’t ask the student government/student body for input. UMBC’s administration has basically told the SGA that they don’t like the current state of affairs regarding smoking, and is giving them a chance to resolve the “problem” before moving on their own. Apparently, the administration’s major concern is cigarette butts being dropped all over the place, which is good news, because that problem is easy to fix (put the ashtrays back). If they were coming right out of the gate saying they wanted to protect students from being unhealthy, we’d be fucked. We might still be, but I think we have a chance here.
As for CEAS, yes, its motives are suspicious (like you said, just look at the name) and its record of advocacy is disturbing , but right now, they are on the fence. Let’s be wary of CEAS without driving away any potential support, or at least the possibility of them declining to lobby for a smoking ban. They say they are looking at both sides of the issue this time, so I’d like to see them prove it through action or lack thereof.
@ SS
if the SGA handles this like the drop date issue, I honestly think we have no chance and smoking will be banned by Quadmania
@ Poppin Fresh
They seem intent on making sure that doesn’t happen again; a significant part of the discussion of the smoking policy I attended was devoted to talking about how to get student opinions and make sure people know what’s going on. Justin Donlan is the SGA senator leading the smoking policy evaluation, so e-mailing him would be worthwhile. The general impression I got from the SGA so far is that they don’t think banning smoking is a good idea, but as they continue to investigate what to do, we need to keep tabs on the process.
I personally think putting back ashtrays that have been removed would take care of most of the litter problems, and it wouldn’t cost anything besides labor because UMBC still has all those ashtrays stowed away at the Facilities Management warehouse. I suggested this to the SGA, and I believe they were planning to ask some questions and find out why they were removed in the first place.
The issue with a bureaucracy, which any university is, is the fact that once the social fence swings in a direction, like banning smoking, it’s impossible to get things revoked or redone. The point being, if you don’t want UMBC to ban smoking, then you have to start speaking up now. When it’s done, it’s done and no one will ever be able to go back to how things were.
Seriously, I doubt anyone could get the old, cube ashtrays put back into place.
@SS: They meant the irritation to stand for an effect that makes the individual uncomfortable based on how they are affected. Whether that happens to be nasal, throat, or eye irritation varies. At this point we are in favor of a reviewing of the current policy to come to some conclusion that is different than the current policy. Right now the policy can be vague and clearly ignored as witnessed along academic corridor. If the SGA supports a change that means smoking in designated areas only, that’s fine. If they want UMBC to go smoke free, that’s fine. If they want to add the cigarette receptacles back to the areas where smoking is allowed, that’s fine. Almost any change to the policy would be better than what is there now.
@ The Individual: We are not calling for an immediate ban on smoking. We would just like the SGA or Administration to reevaluate the smoking policy because it clearly confuses some people and isn’t enforced as it currently stands. Yes, we believe secondhand smoke is harmful, so if the SGA wants to make smoking in designated areas only the policy to contain the secondhand smoke to around those areas only, then we are fine with that. As for no organizations in the past mentioning that Facilities Management could be addressed with issues, I apologize for that. Anyone who was involved in the banning of tobacco sales should have presented all options for those with an opinion. When the acronym for CEAS was chosen, I was still in high school so I can’t tell you what they meant by it, whether it was some underlying meaning or just some clever students. The name stands as it is so please do not penalize the members now for the decisions of others in the past. Is it hard to believe that we may have different values and ideas than the members of past and may not be calling for such banning as you may think?
If the SGA is planning on having a forum or discussion about the idea of changing the policy or going smoke free then we would gladly enjoy hearing all sides of the matter. We will not come to any conclusion and support one side without hearing opinions from both, right now we just want a change in the policy to some effect.
The idea of restricting smoking to designated areas only has been raised, but I have serious misgivings about that option. There are so many wide open areas on campus that it would be ridiculous to tell people they can’t walk and smoke, among other things.
The other issue is enforcement because at this time UMBC Police doesn’t really do anything about that like they’re supposed to. So even if SGA were to limit smoking to only designated areas then the Police would need to step up enforcement or there would be pretty much no change at all and things would go on as they are regardless of the policy change.
It seems like the problem people have with the current policy is with the lack of enforcement rather than the policy itself. If we put back ashtrays to reduce litter and enforced the current policy, would reasonable people who are bothered by cigarette smoke be satisfied?
@CEAS
I believe you have answered your own question. If a restrictive policy is unenforceable, then one should retract such a restriction, instead of trying to impose further restrictions on a failed ordinance.
Smoking has always been restricted at UMBC. Speaking with graduates who graduated in the early 80s, even then it was never permissible to smoke during class, for instance. The mere fact that smoking is banned inside buildings is a restriction on smokers. Such policy has worked without a hitch. To say that lack of restriction is the problem is a misnomer.
If you want to make the policy more tolerable for smokers, since you’re suppose to be representing them, then the idea to allow for smoking indoors should be raised, in designated rooms, like some airports in the South have done. To try and blast one side, without touching the other, is, indeed, a form of prejudice. Though, since under law thus far, such restriction imposed on smokers has not been validated in the Courts, as they have deemed such people shouldn’t have protective rights, I guess your group is simply following societal trends, be them, in themselves, a form of uncivil discourse. I do not feel this is the time to go into the unjust persecution, but your group should be mindful and, actually, represent both sides of the equation, balancing the right to smoke with those who have built it up in their heads that it’s a major problem in their lives.
I do not think it ever dawned on the SGA or the President that UMBC had a smoking policy, before this “share the air” junk emerged. It goes beyond a matter of opinion to say those aiming to restrict smoking are being rather obtuse, ignoring the current restrictions that have been in place for decades. Following a societal trend is not the same as benefiting a college, city, state, or country. Trust me, if you research the history of smoking bans, you may find it interesting to note that they are nothing new. So, the brilliant, CNN restrictions that the SGA regurgitates, thinking how much good they are doing, are, in fact, nothing more than old hats.