http://www.uc.edu/hr/bewelluc/i_want_to/...ofree.html

Yes!! Smartest thing I ever did was quit smoking, but it was harder than going to Viet Nam.

(05-01-2017 04:27 PM)cincybb51 Wrote:  http://www.uc.edu/hr/bewelluc/i_want_to/...ofree.html

This policy doesn't seem very inclusive.

I thought it was tobacco fee back when I was in school (early-mid 2000's). Good choice all the same.

(05-01-2017 08:32 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I thought it was tobacco fee back when I was in school (early-mid 2000's). Good choice all the same.

I think all the buildings were smoke free with designated smoking areas. Now you can't light up anywhere.

Mission accomplished for the smoke police. Food/drink police are next up awaiting orders. Thought and speech police are on deck....

LOL - please let me know when thoughts and speech start forcing cancer-causing particles into other people's bodies

(05-01-2017 05:57 PM)ctipton Wrote:  Yes!! Smartest thing I ever did was quit smoking, but it was harder than going to Viet Nam.

It was a ***** to quit back in the dark days when we did it without patches and drugs. Chewed a lot of gum and gained 15 pounds.

Now I cannot tolerate smoking.

(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....

Sale of Tobacco will be moving to 21+ here soon.

I quit a decades long habit cold turkey May 15th 2004. Glad as hell it's gone but it never quite leaves your lonely dopamine receptors alone. Like a sexy yet batsh!t crazy ex-grlirfriend who calls at random times years later.

That being said, I had the opportunity to make my own personal decisions. Way it should be. Hell, high school was tobacco free too and that didn't stop folks. People will smoke what they want if they want, they will just alter the habit to fit the environment they function in. Way it's probably always been.

(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.

(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....

Not to make this all political but come on.

1. The right to smoke is not a fundamental. Government hasn't banned smoking, schools are choosing to ban it on their campus. As long as schools aren't interfering with a fundamental right they can do things like this, especially when they can have a negative affect on others. Smoking negatively affects the experience of others in many places. Schools can make the choice to not let you smoke on their property without some huge leap that this is government intrusion.
2. People can smoke in their own house if they want, plenty of people still smoke outside bars,...they can buy cigs...If you really want to smoke it's really not hard.
3. I personally voted against the smoking ban in restaurants because I thought the restaurants should be able to do what they want in their own place, BUT I love the smoking ban in restaurants, hell even most smokers I talk to like them as they can smoke outside and don't smell like an ashtray leaving a restaurant. There are public health issues... i don't think it was overreach to limit where cigs can be used as it does have real effect on people who don't choose to smoke.
4. The slippery slope logical fallacy strikes again.... taking measures to stop smoking in certain places... a public health issue even for those that do not smoke does not mean people aren't going to be able to think the way they want. What an insane leap. Hell these smoking bans are happening at the same time as we see massive decriminalization of marijuana use. Limiting use of one thing doesn't immediately mean everything else follows.

I think this thread just jumped the shark.

Over/under. 1000 people will smoke a cig on campus(probably in Nippert) the day of the first football game

(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.

(05-02-2017 09:23 AM)bearcatmark 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....

Not to make this all political but come on.

1. The right to smoke is not a fundamental. Government hasn't banned smoking, schools are choosing to ban it on their campus. As long as schools aren't interfering with a fundamental right they can do things like this, especially when they can have a negative affect on others. Smoking negatively affects the experience of others in many places. Schools can make the choice to not let you smoke on their property without some huge leap that this is government intrusion.
2. People can smoke in their own house if they want, plenty of people still smoke outside bars,...they can buy cigs...If you really want to smoke it's really not hard.
3. I personally voted against the smoking ban in restaurants because I thought the restaurants should be able to do what they want in their own place, BUT I love the smoking ban in restaurants, hell even most smokers I talk to like them as they can smoke outside and don't smell like an ashtray leaving a restaurant. There are public health issues... i don't think it was overreach to limit where cigs can be used as it does have real effect on people who don't choose to smoke.
4. The slippery slope logical fallacy strikes again.... taking measures to stop smoking in certain places... a public health issue even for those that do not smoke does not mean people aren't going to be able to think the way they want. What an insane leap. Hell these smoking bans are happening at the same time as we see massive decriminalization of marijuana use. Limiting use of one thing doesn't immediately mean everything else follows.

In states where pot is legal, but where smoking bans are in effect, can people toke but not smoke cigarettes in/on/around state-regulated facilities?

(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.

(05-02-2017 09:45 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 09:23 AM)bearcatmark 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....

Not to make this all political but come on.

1. The right to smoke is not a fundamental. Government hasn't banned smoking, schools are choosing to ban it on their campus. As long as schools aren't interfering with a fundamental right they can do things like this, especially when they can have a negative affect on others. Smoking negatively affects the experience of others in many places. Schools can make the choice to not let you smoke on their property without some huge leap that this is government intrusion.
2. People can smoke in their own house if they want, plenty of people still smoke outside bars,...they can buy cigs...If you really want to smoke it's really not hard.
3. I personally voted against the smoking ban in restaurants because I thought the restaurants should be able to do what they want in their own place, BUT I love the smoking ban in restaurants, hell even most smokers I talk to like them as they can smoke outside and don't smell like an ashtray leaving a restaurant. There are public health issues... i don't think it was overreach to limit where cigs can be used as it does have real effect on people who don't choose to smoke.
4. The slippery slope logical fallacy strikes again.... taking measures to stop smoking in certain places... a public health issue even for those that do not smoke does not mean people aren't going to be able to think the way they want. What an insane leap. Hell these smoking bans are happening at the same time as we see massive decriminalization of marijuana use. Limiting use of one thing doesn't immediately mean everything else follows.

In states where pot is legal, but where smoking bans are in effect, can people toke but not smoke cigarettes in/on/around state-regulated facilities?

I live in a legal state, and sat on a committee that helped draft the regulations around legal marijuana. Its consumption is more tightly controlled than cigarettes.

(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.

All good. Didn't disagree with anything anyone said....Sometimes it really is just a policy without deeper ramifications to life the universe and everything.

People can still smoke. They just need to walk a block or less to Clifton Ave, Jefferson Ave, MLK or Calhoun to do so on the street or at their favorite establishment with an outside patio. If the AMA came out with a finding that smoking was not a health hazard I'd probably start again tomorrow and would gladly walk up there myself to enjoy one with my favorite beverage.