Smoking ban at ISU

MaxPower57 · 04-17-2008, 04:58 PM

I just think that it is ironic that this smoking ban in so many public places will force smokers to just smoke at their home residence, which in turn, is the only legitimate place where secondhand smoke could be harmful. So in turn, if anything, this smoking ban will only increase the danger of secondhand smoke at the benefit of someone not having to smell smoke at some tailgate once and awhile.

Cy Heavy · 04-17-2008, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by akclone

Nice to know that our elected officials are taking their cues from public polling instead of what they personally think is right/wrong or good/bad. Why dont we just have drive up polls where we can instantly vote on what we want instead of paying brain dead life long politicians to read polls and vote accordingly.

"Welcome, to the real world"
-Morpheus

redrocker · 04-17-2008, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by MaxPower57

I just think that it is ironic that this smoking ban in so many public places will force smokers to just smoke at their home residence, which in turn, is the only legitimate place where secondhand smoke could be harmful. So in turn, if anything, this smoking ban will only increase the danger of secondhand smoke at the benefit of someone not having to smell smoke at some tailgate once and awhile.

Not to stir the pot, but why would a smoker care about second handsmoke in his own home?

mjlane · 04-17-2008, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by MaxPower57

I just think that it is ironic that this smoking ban in so many public places will force smokers to just smoke at their home residence, which in turn, is the only legitimate place where secondhand smoke could be harmful. So in turn, if anything, this smoking ban will only increase the danger of secondhand smoke at the benefit of someone not having to smell smoke at some tailgate once and awhile.

So it will increase the danger of secondhand smoke to someone who already is exposed to firsthand smoke? Does that mean it will just kill off smokers faster? Sounds good to me.

akclone · 04-17-2008, 05:18 PM

Men fight for freedom, then they begin to accumulate laws to take it away from themselves. ~Author Unknown

cycloneworld · 04-17-2008, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by mjlane

So it will increase the danger of secondhand smoke to someone who already is exposed to firsthand smoke? Does that mean it will just kill off smokers faster? Sounds good to me.

Wow. Just wow.

bellzisu · 04-17-2008, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by akclone

Men fight for freedom, then they begin to accumulate laws to take it away from themselves. ~Author Unknown

Best quote I have ever seen when it comes to all these stupid laws.

Personal freedoms and liberties goodbye. Communistic Government and country... Welcome aboard.

Rep to you.

The_Architect · 04-17-2008, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by akclone

What about those kids that died on the interstate during the Iowa game last year after tailgating?

FYI, the drivers BAC was under the legal limit. Around .03 fwiw.

MaxPower57 · 04-17-2008, 05:33 PM

What? The home is the only legitimate place where secondhand smoke can be harmful, and of course I mean dangerous for those living with the smoker, children,etc. If the only place a smoker can smoke is in the home then they will be exposed to more of it? make sense?

bellzisu · 04-17-2008, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by The_Architect

FYI, the drivers BAC was under the legal limit. Around .03 fwiw.

FWIW he may have been under the limit, but he still made a bad decision for having any alcohol in him and driving 80+ on the interstate and not seeing a stalled vehicle.

Regardless, I'm way more concerned about people's civil liberty of drinking in public areas like tailgates then I am with the smoking. I had several incidents with drunken idoits this last year.

redrocker · 04-17-2008, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by MaxPower57

What? The home is the only legitimate place where secondhand smoke can be harmful, and of course I mean dangerous for those living with the smoker, children,etc. If the only place a smoker can smoke is in the home then they will be exposed to more of it? make sense?

If a smoker is that concered with his family (wife, child, cat, dog) then don't do it. You are just admitting that it is dangerous and harmful to people. Go outside, Go away from people. I do not smoke, but I agree outside is not as bad, and it does not bother me (but it does some). People need to show enough respect of others to keep the smoke away from others that do not want it around.

Cyclone62 · 04-17-2008, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by redrocker

Go outside, Go away from people. I do not smoke, but I agree outside is not as bad, and it does not bother me (but it does some). People need to show enough respect of others to keep the smoke away from others that do not want it around.

That's what I do actually. When I still had classes on campus, I wouldn't blow smoke it people's faces, wouldn't stand in the doorways of buildings, and many times would be next to the sidewalk instead of standing on it when I wasn't moving. How that really bothers anyone enough to be a problem is beyond me.

EggMcClone · 04-17-2008, 05:51 PM

As someone who spent a fair amount of time at the smoker's table in front of Larch Hall (but very rarely smoke now) I'm curious where people are supposed to go to smoke. It's not easy to get to the sidewalk on Lincolnway but is that the only option? Also do they enforce the current 25 feet from doors ban during shows at the M Shop? There were always a bunch of people smoking there too.

I have to admit that I love nonsmoking bars now but banning it outdoors seems to go too far. There are studies that show that secondhand smoke indoors is harmful but I've seen nothing to indicate that there are any negative effects for outdoors. I understand that some people have asthma but people make choices about what activities they do and don't participate in every day based on how they affect their health. Car exhaust is much more of a factor for asthma than outdoor smoke but no one is banning them and there's no right to drive in the constitution either.

DBQ Clone · 04-17-2008, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by bellzisu

Best quote I have ever seen when it comes to all these stupid laws.

Personal freedoms and liberties goodbye. Communistic Government and country... Welcome aboard.

Rep to you.

Yes. It's all a conspiracy.

Soon, jackbooted liberals (!) will march down the street to take away all your cigarettes.

Then you'll have to swear upon the latest edition of the Village Voice fealty to the Communists.

This is a nation of laws. Freedom has always been limited by them. I am not free to kill people. I am not free to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. I am not free to take what is not mine. I am not free to pour gasoline on your house and light it.

It's not like the smoking ban was beamed into the legislators heads from outer space. This came from their constituents. They wouldn't pass it unless they thought they could do it without costing them votes. Therefore there is force of the majority will here.

I don't agree with banning smoking in wide open spaces. You should be able to light up between Curtiss and Beardshear. The 10 foot law is reasonable. Keeps people from walking through a dense cloud of smoke on the way out of the building. It's also enforceable.

Tailgates are a whole other matter. It's close quarters. But as has been stated here, is the cigarette smoke any worse than the firebomb that emanates from a freshly lit charcoal grill, or the smoke from grilling meats. I would have to say no.

I'm more for banning it in buildings where it makes sense and is enforceable.

Once again, I have to reiterate, there is no "right to smoke."

Cyclone62 · 04-18-2008, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by DBQ Clone

I don't agree with banning smoking in wide open spaces. You should be able to light up between Curtiss and Beardshear. The 10 foot law is reasonable. Keeps people from walking through a dense cloud of smoke on the way out of the building. It's also enforceable.

Tailgates are a whole other matter. It's close quarters. But as has been stated here, is the cigarette smoke any worse than the firebomb that emanates from a freshly lit charcoal grill, or the smoke from grilling meats. I would have to say no.

I'm more for banning it in buildings where it makes sense and is enforceable.

The 25-foot ban, and the indoor smoking ban is something that I think everyone agrees (smokers and non-smokers) is fine and justifiable. The wide open areas piece of the law is what goes too far. I think I'm more likely to get punched in the face on my way to class than I am to get cancer from secondhand smoke while I'm on central campus.

Just a question though, does this law mean the Chica Shack has to close its doors? It's a bar purely for smoking flavored tobacco. I don't know any non-smoker that goes there for any reason, nor should they and then complain about the smoke in there.