The policy would exempt “tobacco when integral to university research and tobacco-funded research.”
It takes a real idiot not see to through this political farce.
0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Do those of you who say yes still*****your thumb at night?
2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Far too many, including my Father, from smoking...bad stuff.
1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Sorry, left out lung cancer...
0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
I think that anyone that wants to smoke should be able to smoke. I also think those that do not want to smoke should not be forced to inhale others smoke. To protect the rights of the non-smokers I think all public smoking should be banned. If you want to smoke go some place where it is not going to infringe on others rights that does not want to smoke.
3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Ok, then driving should be outlawed because I don't want to breathe your exhaust. Industry should be outlawed. Farming should be outlawed because someone else might breathe in sprayed chemicals or fumes from the tractor. Where does it stop? You ask for a nanny state and you'll get one.
5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Grant, we have laws that regulate exhaust emissions and industrial pollutants why shouldn't we have laws that regulate smoking? I don't believe the desire to breath clean air is tantamount to wanting a nanny state. If you want to experience what it would be like to breath air in an environment without regulations, I suggest you take a visit to China.
1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Grant we really shouldn't have to have laws like this, but it is the inconsiderate attitude of some smokers that don't care about those around them, when they light up, that makes them needed. The smoking ban laws in certain areas don't take away their right to smoke it just prohibits infringing on others rights. If you take the attitude that anyone should be able to do anything anywhere they want and the rest just have to live with it, we would have anarchy. Is that what you want? I am not against laws agreed upon by the majority. That is what keeps our society civil. If exercising my rights around others infringes on the rights of others then we do not have a free society do we? It would only be free for some and the rest would just have to accept it. Sensible laws that take everyones rights into consideration is what makes for a sensible society.
2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Well, I tell everyone I see smoking that it can kill them because it killed my Dad...but, I believe laws should be very carefully thought out and honestly new laws passed if there is no other way.
Should there be smoking in a closed area such as a restaurant or classroom or lounge...nope. Should a law be written to take away a person's right to harm themselves when there is overwhelming proof that cigaretts kill...maybe, but?
Maybe all these laws would be harder to pass if we demanded the legislature reduce at least 25 old laws for every new law to be passed.
1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Phoenix...should a law be passed to demand a person with diabeties(not certain I spelled that correctly) take meds and not eat a bunch of sugar...or a person who has had a stroke take plavix?
This has to be carefully thought out
The child is back...must be a day off from school.
But, children should hear wisdom from those who have lived longer and have experiences to share.
2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Kozy, I believe a person has a right to smoke, not take their meds, whatever, they are responsible for their own health. However, when what they do infringes on the health of others the equation changes. For instance, I have a grandson who suffers from severe asthma, something as simple as second hand smoke can trigger an attack, shouldn't he have a right to public areas without fear of getting sick?
Oh...ok, so I don't have to worry about car exhaust or anything like that then? So the entire climate change agenda is null and void, right?
My only point is, you give lawmakers an inch and they take a mile. That's been proven time and time again. The better way to handle it is to participate in private groups that discourage smoking and teach of the dangers of it. Or if you're in a place where a smoker is bothering you, politely ask them to put it out. If you let the government assume these powers then you're giving them precedent to do much more. No one ever seems to think of the unintended consequences. You don't think it'll create a nanny state? Well, you can't buy a 32 oz. Coke in NYC anymore. Where does it end? The answer is, it doesn't. You can't let it start.
P.S., I saw your last bit right as I was about to post this--you believe you have a right to go into a public area and not catch the flu?
3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Grant I understand your concern and to a point I agree. We can not let the government take complete control of our lives. However we also can't let people do things that directly effects others. Our liberties do not give us the right to infringe on others. ? With liberty comes responsibility. I realize there is a fine line there. I don't think the amount of tax they are allowed to put on a pack of cigarettes is right either. I heard of one state that it was over $6 a pack. The sad part is it is usually those that can least afford to smoke that do, so it just puts a bigger tax burden on those at the lower end of the economic scale. I think if someone want to kill themselves with tobacco they should be allowed to do so, just don't take others that don't want to go that way with you.
Then why aren't you arguing that someones car exhaust is infringing on your right to breathe clean air? Unless you're blowing it in someones face, no one can make the argument that you are directly infringing on someone else's rights in an open air environment and have any credibility if they don't start attacking exhaust fumes, power plants, cow *****. Why stop there? We should just kill everyone because they exhale CO2 and it's toxic to the human body. If you're in a public place, DO NOT EXHALE! You may infringe on someone else's right to not inhale CO2.
Don't we have more important fish to fry than this?
4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
concerned, I agree and why I'm so against Obamacare. The real problem with our healthcare was cost, not quality. Obamacare is forcing people who don't want insurance to have insurance and for the rest of us to pay for it AND, the government is running it (scarry).
What happened to, if youmake a choice...you live with your choice. If you are here illegially or choose to go insurance free...you don't get covered care...you have to pay for services renderd.
If you choose to smoke and get sick...you pay for care not covered by your insurance, if any, and most probably die younger than you should. My concern is for those who are affected by your smoking and aren't making a choice.
0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Grant...yes bigger fish, but it's the subject.
This isn't about whether or not smoking should be allowed indoors or in places where others are subjected to second hand smoke such as entrances to buildings...that's already regulated by the state. This is about anywhere on campus, no matter how remote or segregated. If the colleges feel they have a tobacco nuisance on their campuses then they could designate a smoking area in an out of the way place that would not interfere with passersby. Otherwise, expect to see dozens or hundreds of students standing right outside the edge of campus puffing away between each class. Wouldn't that look nice?
I understand that if a college accepts state money for their operations then the state can influence the school's policies. What about the non-state funded school? Shouldn't that school be allowed to set it's own policies?
How does telling someone they can't smoke not infringe on their rights?
The state wants to convey the idea that tobacco is bad and it does not want people using it but yet they don't just outlaw it. Maybe that has to do with the huge sum of money in brings in on tobacco taxes.
Hey, if they want to ban smoking, sure however, you need to ban alcohol as well.
Opps that is right, we already tried that and it DID NOT WORK!
Carefree Highway - Gordon Lightfoot
Concerned: I am not against laws agreed upon by the majority."
The problem is like prohibition, these do-gooders see something they don't like and then force it down our throats. It isn't a majority, it is a minority.
3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
It Could Have Been So Good - Collin Raye
Nothing should be law simply because the majority agrees with it. That's a horrible idea that seems to be finding it's way into every conversation these days. WE DO NOT HAVE A DEMOCRACY.
161 North Lincoln , Salem, OH 44460 |