Suggestion Archives

Can we have a smoking area around Kinard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------With ths success of the efforts to ban smoking, I wonder what the next health concern will be that will be tackled. Hopefully, the next item on the agenda will concern the rampid and widespread weight increases around campus. I am very concerned about the number of people I see on campus who are caring an awful lot of extra weight. I am very concerned with the large percentage of my co-workers who are carrying more that "a few extra pounds"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a smoker, and I totally disagree with making Winthrop a smoke-free campus. As a smoker I can understand that some people do get bothered by second-hand smoke. And that there is some good reasons to move away from the entrances to the building. I do not agree with having an entirely smoke-free campus. I am a smoker of legal age, and it is my right and freedom as an American to choose to smoke. I do not feel that there should be designated areas that I would have to go stand in, I do not want to be put on display and segregated for being a smoker. As for a healthy environment, When is Thompson Cafeteria, and Dinkins going to start serving all vegitarian and organic foods? We all know that there is a problem with obesity in America today, if Winthrop wants to rid the campus of smoking, and try to put us in some type of program to help us quit, why don't they get rid of all the unhealthy, and fatty foods in the cafes, and put everyone on an exercise program? That seems fair to me, because I am a smoker. I think this whole idea is a bunch of crap. But no one's goin to listen to me, I only pay thousands of dollars to attend this university, I abide by all the stupid rules and regulations and policies, and now I'm going to be segregated against and loose my right as an american to have the freedom to smoke. This really is a messed up world we live in.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The updated survey is appreciated since it does allow for the expressions of opinions other than those in agreement with a smoking ban, but questions that ask respondents to choose either "everything should be tobacco-free" or "nothing should be tobacco-free" leave no room for a middle ground! I had to check "nothing should be tobacco-free" because it comes closest to my opinion, but that doesn't mean I support smoking in classrooms, bathrooms, or building hallways!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, I feel the survey was unfairly weighted towards non smokers and will not give a true picture of campus opinion.
This policy will force smokers into exile, which in turn would lead to poor production from staff, who would be forced to leave campus for a smoke break.
I also feel that this policy is a large infringement of civil liberties.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am greatly concerned that the wording employed in the recent announcements seems to imply that this new tobacoo-free policy is a "done deal." You indicate that you value opinions concerning "the design and implementation" of the policy, but apparently not on the policy itself. I fear this will lead readers to believe that they have no choice but to go along with this ban. I do hope the upcoming forums will allow for an open discussion of all aspects of this "proposed" policy.

Also, the survey (which readers are directed to only if they cannot attend the forums)has had little participation. To say that a certain percentage of respondents express agreement with the policy, when in fact it is actually a very small percentage of the campus community represented, is patently unfair.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think smoking should simply be banned from inside public buildings. Smoking should be allowed anywhere outside (but smokers need to respect people and stand off the doors a few feet) and inside personal living spaces (dorm rooms, apartment rooms)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am currently a smoker. As one, and someone who previously didn't, I both understand how both parties feel. Being a decent person, I know a lot of people don't like the smell of smoke or walking through it. But as a smoker, I feel you (the university)shouldn't have the ability to control me that much. I do agree, however that inside buildings should be banned, for these places are often visited. What I don't agree with is forcing smokers to go to a certain area just to smoke. I tend to smoke on my walk to class and on my walk back to my car, and if I get out of class early. I smoke outside, sometimes near doors. I understand that not everyone likes it...but if they see me there smoking and it bothers them that bad...walk around. And if you ban smoking because it irritates people (main reason, lets be serious), you have to then ban all perfumes because often they are pungant and can sting my eyes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THANK YOU FOR HAVING A VISION FOR A SMOKE FREE UNIVERSITY.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FANTISTIC!!!!! I have been waiting 4 years for this! I even started a petitition myself but due to time constraints couldn't follow through (much to my chagrin). It is about time someone decided to protect the health of the students and faculty!! Many thanks to the committee.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am glad something is finally being done about the massive amount of smoke that I have to walk through to get into a buidling. I hate it occurred so late because I will graduate in May, but maybe this policy can be implemented before then. If not, well at least my wife won't have to deal with the smokey entrances during her senior year. We are both non-smokers and we are very tired of being smoothered with cigarette smoke every time we go into a building. To make matters worse, second hand smoke is worse for us than it is the inconsiderate person smoking the cigarette. To whoever wrote this policy and to all those who help implemetn it, THANK YOU!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professors should not be allowed to smoke in their offices and pollute the hallways as such is the case in the Sociology Department in Kinard.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I totally agree with the Tobacco-Free Policy. I hate walking into the entrance of Kinard Hall with everyone standing on the steps smoking.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this is the best thing ever. I hate walking through all the smoke outside of thrumand and kin. I hope this works out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that it is a wonderful idea to make Winthrop smoke-free. I know that some may argue that is limits freedom, but it is also (more importantly) a step towards making Winthrop a safer environment to be in. Many people are allergic to or just annoyed by smoke. If someone wants to smoke bad enough, they can go somewhere where it's allowed. It might even get some people to QUIT smoking, which is always a good thing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

as a smoker, who pays tuition, i commend you on your efforts. however, because i do pay tuition i would hope that your 25 foot rule would include some sort of accomidation for those of us content to smoke our lungs away. everyone has a right to breath thier choice of air and we all have a right to stay dry in the rain.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How will said policy be enforced, especially among visitors to the campus?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I strongly support the recommended policy and hope we will progress toward a totally smoke-free environment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this policy goes through then I'm looking into another college.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for being concerned with everyone's health!!
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not have a problem with not smoking in the public buildings or directly outside entrances/exits and, yes, I am a smoker. However, I worry about mandating the outdoors. And I worry about what possibilities such an injunction precedes. What are the upcoming policies - no cars (because it's better for you to walk), no extra pounds (obesity is the number one killer in the US), no perfume (it gives me a migrane!). BE CAREFUL of what you wish for, it can very easily get carried too far.

Come on, smokers! I think if we had all shown consideration for our fellow citizens of Winthrop, this situation would not have arisen. A 25-50 foot rule is more than enough space to allow smoke to disipate and ensure people can get through smoke-free. It's not too late to start...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Food For Thought

The Passive Smoke Whopper

Exposing the SCANDAL OF THE CENTURY!

America: 1980 A.D.

The world was a much friendlier place in 1980. If you weren't around in 1980, let this be an exercise in imagination. If you remember 1980, remember it fondly.

You could smoke on a bus; you could smoke on an airplane. You could smoke in a restaurant; you could smoke in a movie theater. You could cruise the mall with a lit cigarette in hand. If you were in college, you could light up a cigarette in the middle of class. You could even smoke in the waiting room at the doctor's office. Non-smokers had smoking roommates and never complained about it. You could smoke anywhere and everywhere, inside and out, unless a no-smoking sign was posted for safety (i.e., at a gas station). Cigarettes cost 99 cents a pack, and were readily available for anyone who wanted to buy them.

In other words, tobacco was treated the way present-day society treats coffee. An innocuous pleasure and a normal part of everyday life. Some people like it, some people don't -- and if you like it, people who don't like it never look down on you or question what must be "wrong" with you.

If things were still this way today, this web site would not exist. It would not be needed.

The rise of the Smoke Nazis

Most Americans of the time had no problem with the smoker-friendly society of 1980. As has been true throughout history, the majority did not smoke. But, unlike now, non-smokers in 1980 acknowledged that some people like to smoke, and should have the freedom to make their own decisions. Smokers were never harassed or ridiculed for their choice.

But around that time, two select groups of people started pressuring the government to stand up for "non-smokers' rights". First were the people who didn't like the way it smelled. (I don't know about you, but I always thought it smelled good -- even before I started smoking.) Then there were the parents, who were worried kids would start smoking when they were too young to understand the risks involved.

By about 1990, everyone had these issues pretty well solved. Laws would be passed forbidding cigarette sales to children. Smokers would sit in smoking sections; ventilation systems would be installed. Life would be good (and the air conditioner repairman would get rich). Most people were happy with the changes, and never even thought about asking for more.

A small minority of people, however, were set out on eradicating smoking completely. I will call them the Smoke Nazis. They knew the government would never outlaw tobacco -- it would make the high-crime days of Alcohol Prohibition look like a tea party -- but, if they could ban smoking in public places, that would be a big first step.

"Ban smoking in public?! But tobacco is legal! It's the smoker's legal right to do that!", the Republican Congress said. The government would not act to ban smoking in public places unless the Smoke Nazis could offer some proof that cigarette smoke was "harmful to innocent bystanders", thus justifying intervention in the name of public safety.

The Smoke Nazis got the proof they needed in 1993, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released a groundbreaking new 600-page report. Entitled Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders, it declares secondhand smoke a Class A human carcinogen with no safe level of exposure.

Ten years later, the world is a much better place. Smokers are given the punishment they deserve for using their smoke as a murder weapon, and they are restricted from poisoning the air in an outdoor public area. At long last, smokers are the second-class citizens they deserve to be.

The forgotten chapter

Is secondhand smoke really deadly? Look at the facts carefully. In summary, a bunch of tobacco farmers sued the EPA for deliberately suppressing scientific evidence that would have proven secondhand smoke not guilty of murder. In July 1998, South Carolina judge William Osteen -- a notably anti-tobacco judge -- ruled that the EPA's evidence against secondhand smoke was not found in the proper conditions. He found that:

The EPA did not do any new research. They simply aggregated the results of a number of existing studies into one "super study" from which to draw conclusions.

The EPA announced the results of their analysis before it was finished.

The EPA excluded nearly two thirds of the data from their analysis.

When they still couldn't arrive at the desired conclusion by ignoring most of the data, they doubled their margin of error.

Judge Osteen ordered the 600-page report vacated -- declared legally null and void. Secondhand smoke was the biggest scandal of the 20th century, and as far as I know, the Court's damning decision went totally unreported by the media.

The EPA was able to claim secondhand smoke causes cancer only after it cherry-picked information, changed the rules of standard statistical analysis, and tortured the data to fit its agenda.

In other words, if the EPA had followed its own rules and the well-accepted rules of science, it could not have concluded that secondhand smoke causes cancer. An objective observer looking at all the available evidence would reach very different conclusions from those of the EPA.

The American public relies on the government to provide fair, accurate, well-supported evidence in its statements about public health. Perversion of the scientific process to support a political agenda is a reprehensible violation of public trust.

"Aren't you aware that Osteen's ruling was ITSELF vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals in 2002?" It is true that the EPA appealed Osteen's ruling, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted EPA's appeal. However, the reason for granting the appeal was based on a legal technicality, not on the scientific merit of the Osteen decision. The Court of Appeals reversed Osteen's ruling based on jurisdiction, while explicitly affirming the importance of the issues raised by Osteen regarding the glaring deficiencies in the methodology of the EPA's fatally flawed report on secondhand smoke.

You should seriously question the credibility of anyone who refers to the EPA report, or any of the conclusions that it reached, as if they were facts. That includes everyone who calls secondhand smoke a "class A carcinogen." Once they do, every subsequent statement they make should be considered highly suspicious until it is thoroughly verified.

"But what about the individual studies? What do THEY say?" Well, let's see.

"In general, there was no elevated lung cancer risk associated with passive smoke exposure in the workplace" Brownson et. al., 1992, American Journal of Public Health, November 1992, Vol. 82, No. 11

"... an odds ratio of 0.91 ... indicating no evidence of an adverse effect of environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace" Janerich et al., 1990 New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 6, 1990

"...the association with exposure to passive smoking at work was small and not statistically significant" Kalandidi et al., 1990 Cancer Causes and Control, 1, 15-21, 1990

"Among women exposed only at work, the multivariate relative risks of total CHD were 1.49 ... among those occasionally exposed and 1.92 ... among those regularly exposed to second-hand smoke, neither of which is statistically significant according to commonly accepted scientific standards" Kawachi et al., 1997 Circulation, Vol. 95, No. 10, May 20, 1997

"No association was observed between the risk of lung cancer and smoking of husband or passive smoke exposure at work." Shimizu et al., 1988 Tohoku J. Exp. Med., 154:389-397

"We found no increase in CHD [coronary heart disease] risk associated with ETS exposure at work or in other settings." Steenland et al., 1996 Circulation, Vol. 94, No. 4, August 15, 1996

"... no statistically significant increase in risk associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke at work or during social activities...." Stockwell et al., 1992 Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 84:1417-1422, 1992

"There was no association between exposure to ETS at the workplace and risk of lung cancer." Zaridze et al., 1998 International Journal of Cancer, 1998, 75, 335-338

Furthermore, according to the largest study ever performed on the topic:

"No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, before or after adjusting for seven confounders, and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease." Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98

Every major study whose parameters were not changed to bolster a preconceived result shows little or no health risk from secondhand smoke.

"Never mind the studies. If you can see it, and you can smell it, that means there's SOMETHING THERE, and that ain't CLEAN AIR!" Tobacco smoke is not pure air.

About 95% of tobacco smoke is composed of ordinary air with a slight excess of water and carbon dioxide.

The remaining 5% contains the rest of the "4,000 chemicals" supposedly found in tobacco smoke -- but found, obviously, in extremely small amounts.

Far from all 4,000 of those chemicals are normally labeled as toxic in the first place, with the 1989 Surgeon General's report only noting that "some" are -- without reference to how many or to what amounts would be considered toxic. One of the most fundamental principles of toxicology is that "the dose makes the poison" -- a fact always ignored by anti-smoking crusaders. An aspirin a day keeps the doctor away, but take the whole bottle at once and it will kill you instantly.

Dr. Gio Batta Gori and Dr. Nathan Mantel -- both ardent anti-smokers -- actually burned cigarettes and measured the chemicals produced. Then they consulted the U.S. government's list of safe levels of exposure for each of the chemicals detected in the smoke.

How many cigarettes would it take to reach these levels? Let's see.

FIGURE 1. Estimated number of cigarettes required to reach OSHA safe exposure limits from secondhand smoke emission of selected chemicals in a sealed and unventilated 20' x 20' x 9' enclosure (Gori & Mantel, 1991)

ETS Component ETS Output

(mg/cig) Safety Limit

(mg/m3) Cigarettes

Required

Methyl chloride 0.88 0.30 1,170

Acetaldehyde 1.26 180.00 1,430

Nitrogen oxides 2.80 50.00 1,780

Phenol 0.25 19.00 7,600

Benzene 0.24 32.00 13,300

Dimethylamine 0.036 18.00 50,000

Benzo[a]pyrene 0.00009 0.20 222,000

Polonium 210 0.4pCi 3pCi/l 750,000

Toluene 0.000035 375.00 1,000,000

It does not look like these enormous amounts will be reached in any normal environment, at work or at home. If you think I'm kidding, read the actual report.

According to Michael J. McFadden, "the risk of secondary smoke to nonsmokers has been twisted and exaggerated beyond all reason purely as a tool of social engineering. Even the infamous EPA Report of 1993 testified more to the safety of secondary smoke than to its danger. According to the EPA figures themselves, a nonsmoker living with a smoker for 30 to 40 years would have better than a 99.9% chance of not getting lung cancer from such long-term and constant exposure."

Unfortunately, that says it all.

Nobody denies the presence of harmful compounds in tobacco smoke, but the amount of those compounds even in high concentrations of secondhand smoke is so small, it cannot possibly have serious consequences for health even after years of exposure. The dose is the poison.

Does this mean that we should gratuitously expose infants to secondhand smoke? Even though I personally believe that it would do them no harm, the answer is of course not. But that is a far cry from all-encompassing smoking bans that force people to behave according to the dictates of a bunch of corrupt politicians.

For more information on the misleading statements, exaggerations, half-truths and sometimes outright lies that the anti-smokers use to further their agenda, you may want to check out Michael McFadden's book, Dissecting Antismokers' Brains.

This is reprinted from:http://www.smokingpermitted.com/secondhand.html

________________________________________________________________________________

I am so discouraged by the lack of concern and/or disreguard for explicitly known information. SMOKING IS BAD, SECONDHAND SMOKE IS EVEN WORSE. Seriously anyone who argues that looks ridiculous-I don't care how long your post is or what surveys/research you attempt to use in support. Please do some more quality research and educate yourself thoroughly.

At one of the forums I was dismayed to hear someone (happened to be a non-smoker) say, "As a non-smoker I've learned the avoidance technique". WHAT??? As much as smokers are pleading that this health plan would jeapordize their freedoms...I beg the same thing! Non-smokers should not, EVER, have to accomodate smokers because they've chosen a certain entrance as their favorite. NO I will not walk around to the back. I pay just as much tuition as you do, probably more (out of state) so that argument is null.

Let us weigh the disturbance of each side. It is simply, non-smokers are not affecting smokers in any outward way when they walk by, and smokers ARE. Too bad we can't just shut off cigarettes when people walk by...too bad.

WHAAAA to those of you saying that it would be so inconveniant for you to go to a designated area. If Winthrop cares enough about you to erect facilities which are accomodating to you (benches, ashtrays, shelter, heating/air conditioning) than you should consider yourself advantageous. Many more progressive states and schools (California) have completely banned smoking. Period. Unviolated health, untampered lungs, unclogged airways....WHAT A CONCEPT?

Please stop being so immature. You know that smoking is bad for you. You know it is even worse for other people. So don't cry when somebody is trying to reach out to the victims of the situation while still attempting to accomodate the initiators of the conflict.

In reguard to the idea of moving the boundaries to 25-50ft away from entrances-I say boo. So instead of walking through a choking cloud of unsolicited chemicals RIGHT NEXT TO THE BUILDING, I get to go through it AHEAD OF TIME. Thanks but no thanks.

I really do commend the committee for its efforts but I hope that this policy is not political. While attending the session it seemed as if people were trying to walk without stepping on anybody's toes. Self-monitoring? That makes the policy a joke. No, imprisonment is probably not the answer but a building manager who takes their job seriously would be a better choice.

That's all I have to say for now. I'm sure I will have more insight later. = )

GREAT JOB TO THOSE OF YOU WHO CARE ABOUT US!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would be OK with letting certain floors in resident halls be set aside for smokers if it were 100% guaranteed that non-smokers and people that are allergic to smoke would not be on those floors. One of my friends is allergic to smoke and she got put with a smoker. That is just unreasonable. I live on the smoking floor of Lee Wicker and I am not usually bothered by it while I am in my room, though on occasion I am, it does bother me when I go out in the hall way. The smell of smoke is just repulsive and I do not think that I should have to live with it. Yes, smoking is a life-style choice and maybe we do not have the right to regulate it or maybe we do not have the right to say that people cannot smoke in their rooms. However, letting them smoke in their rooms and not regulating it is almost encouraging the bad habit of smoking. Smoking has consequences for most people. I do not think that non-smokers should be subject to those consequences just because we want to live on campus.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The library's large planters in front of the building act as enormous ashtrays for smokers. I fear that the 50-foot restrcition will not be enough to prevent those sites being used as ashtrays. Could some thought be given to extending the distance from those flower beds to 50 feet, making it about 150 from the entrance?