http://www.statenews.com Before leaving MSU’s main campus for my clinical rotations as a third year medical student, I feel compelled to express an ongoing problem. en-us Gryphon 2.2.3b-tsn (woodward)/Foundry5 Sat, 02 May 2009 16:27:38 -0400 webmaster@statenews.com http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39030 Man, you probably breathe more carcinogens just walking along the sidewalk from cars as you do briefly walking by some smokers outside your dorm. I know it is a policy to be 25 feet away, but it really isn’t worth the time for the police to write a ticket for someone. Just chiiiiiilll. On a side note, banning smoking across campus is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:22:07 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39030 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39031 I don’t smoke but I don’t agree with banning smoking on campus. Even though this is a somewhat serious health issue for the overall community, I do believe that smokers have a right to do their thing. Also, if you take a look, smokers at MSU go in groups and are not dispersed. So, its like they are all in one place. Banning on campus smoking is just a PR move that will otherwise benefit the Medical School in other institutions by getting more donations and grants. So, as dangerous as smoking is lets keep MSU’s current policy and let the people that want to smoke, well, smoke. Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:27:47 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39031 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39047 Thank God that butterpile will be at the back of the line for an organ transplant (if he/she should ever need one) due to lifestyle choices. And banning smoking across campus is the best thing that ever happened. Fri, 24 Apr 2009 06:57:03 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39047 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39049 Since smokers don’t care about their bodies they are not going to care about anyone else’s and abide by the 25 foot rule. Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:08:26 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39049 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39050 Smoking, which Mr. Obama claims to have just quit, just shows how STUPID Michigan and DEMOC-RATS are. Smoking brings early DEATH. It accounts for as much as 15% of U.S. health care costs — $200,000,000,000.00. http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=10298&ttype=2 Yet — Mr. ex-smoker President wants to RAISE THE TAX BURDEN to pay for “universal health care.” HOW DUMB! TO PAY FOR SMOKING’S DAMAGE — EVEN IF YOU DO NOT SMOKE? DUMB, DUMB, DUMB! DEMOC-RATS!! Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:15:50 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39050 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39052 Cancer Boy- Who do you think pays for smokers health care now? We either pay for it with Medicare taxes or we pay for it in higher health care cost and premiums. When people talk about Obama raising taxes on business, they said those taxes are passed down to us the same is true of those who smoke. The book you linked to said as much. That’s why I get annoyed with people who say smokers have a right to smoke. Well, that “right” results in my insurance costing more, spreads cancer to non-smokers and makes insurance unaffordable for others. So let’s balance your right with my right not to have to pay for your stupidity. Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:44:00 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39052 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39053 They Don’t Care- Obviously, that is the point. But it shouldn’t matter whether smokers don’t care about the law. It is the law. This article suggests ways that we can help enforce it and we should enforce it because I don’t care if smokers think they have a “right” to smoke. I actually do have a right not to smoke with them. Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:02:11 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39053 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39066 I have to believe that BUTTERPILE IS CANCER BOY is some kind of bizarre performance piece. Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:21:39 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39066 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39078 I agree that the smoking is a problem. I spend a lot of time working in Fee Hall, and there is one door right outside a stairwell that people are always sitting next to and smoking. That stairwell always reeks of smoke when they are there. I often have to walk around the building to avoid that door. The smoke is so bad there that I have to hold my breath. Sadly, my service dog can’t hold his, and he coughs when we walk through such an area. Another bad area on campus is the library entrance. I have been taking classes at LCC for the past year (can’t afford MSU’s tuition, but that’s another story). It is absolutely wonderful to walk around the campus and not be assaulted by cigarette smoke. If you want to smoke there, you’ve got to walk to the edge of campus. The police do patrol the campus and discuss the rules with anybody caught smoking (don’t know if they actually write citations). Given the large size of MSU’s campus, it may be more practical to establish designated smoking areas in out-of-the-way places around the center of campus. Secondhand smoke isn’t just about carcinogens. It’s also about people with asthma who get triggered into an asthma attack by the smoke. Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:10:39 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39078 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39080 the police have a duty to enforce laws, but they are too busy sitting on shaw trying to catch an undergrad going 5 over to give them a ticket. also, im in favor of banning smoking in all bars and restaurants. ive moved to a state that doesn’t allow smoking, and all the bars are still busy. when you go home you dont smell like smoke at all, and you dont feel like you’ve spent the last couple of hours in a gas cloud. its weird coming home now and walking into a bar because you can tell theres a big difference right away Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:24:43 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39080 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39081 I can’t believe people even still smoke, but that’s another issue. I believe people have the right to slowly poison themselves to death if they want to, just do it away from sane people. Why do smokers have the right to create a gauntlet of second hand smoke right outside of buildings that everyone has to walk in and out of? You have your right to smoke, I should have the right not to breath that garbage in. Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:38:24 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39081 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39085 Not to mention all the cigarrette butts that get tossed on the ground. Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:13:56 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39085 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39086 Ban smoking on MSU’s campus. I’ll get in my car and drive off campus to smoke between classes. The greenhouse gases and NOX and every other chemical coming out of my tailpipe will be waaayyy better for you and the Earth than my cigarette smoke… Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:26:08 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39086 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39108 I agree with Dave. It makes me angry to have to walk through that crap, and then stink like a smoker for the rest of the day. Smokers are so inconsiderate it’s astounding. Not to mention the way they litter all over with their rancid cigarette butts. Disgusting. Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:33:51 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39108 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39109 Matt- Why don’t you stop being a complete idiot and just quit smoking? Why should the 80% of us who don’t smoke have to smell the bad habit of the 20% who do smoke? And even worse than the smell is the increase risk of cancer for the nonsmokers. You have no conscience. Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:35:38 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39109 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39110 I don’t understand why smokers even want to defend their case when they know that what they are doing is harming themselves and the people around them. It seems like a big joke. There should definitely be a smoking ban imposed on campus. I don’t care if you have to drive onto Grand River to smoke because this is a democracy and the majority’s decision should be upheld. I don’t want to have to open the doors at Wells Hall (or any other building for that matter) and go through that crowd of smokers who are coincidentally the inconsiderate people who block the doors from being opened, especially when it is raining. If you are going to be inconsiderate and selfish in the way you conduct your life, you should not expect people to respect your right to certain items. And Matt, let me remind you that when you do drive, you are not just harming us, you are harming yourself, since you will be around to witness the effect of the pollution and global warming (or maybe not, since you choose to torture your body by smoking) Sun, 26 Apr 2009 01:59:08 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39110 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39115 In many states in the U.S. we legally require people to wear motorcycle helmets when riding. In one of the deciding cases that determined this law it was cited that people do not have the right or freedom to refuse to wear a helmet because most American citizens are such that we are unlikely to leave someone lying bleeding on the side of the highway. It was mentioned in this case that it is an inconvenience to others and is an expense to all because some citizens decide to be irresponsible. If we recognize the ethics of restricting rights in this way, it is ridiculous to think that we would not do so in regards to the “rights” of smokers. Especially since in the case of smoking, the smoker is DIRECTLY negatively affecting the health of another. An inconvenience and expense are even the two lesser arguments against smoking but – as just demonstrated – have still been found to be sufficient in other considerations. More important to the present argument are the deleterious effects of second hand smoke. As a country, we often stipulate a negative effect on someone’s health as a legitimate reason to restrict the rights of others. This is why companies and industries cannot simply emit whatever noxious chemicals they want into the air. I would also argue smoking in public places is comparable to drunk driving; putting another at risk because you believe you have the right to do what you want (albeit the cause of death is immediate). Some of these comments have remarked that students and others should just avoid the group of people and cloud of smoke (Where is your literature on second hand smoke that specifies you can walk out of the way a little and not be effected?). I would like to see someone try to argue that people should just avoid drunk drivers on the road, or live farther away from factories. It wouldn’t fly, because people have the right to be healthy. Read something on public health law and ethics and try to come up with a legitimate argument for the right to smoke in public places. You can be as pissy, rude and selfish as you want, but it is only a matter of time… Additionally, I have to wonder – why do smokers as a group seem to want to seem so inconsiderate? Why Matt does it seem appropriate to you to show that no matter what you can find a way to make the world a worse place for all? Why do you want to be that person? Some people spend every day of their lives trying to make the world a better place. You don’t deserve to live in their world and they don’t deserve to be negatively affected by your actions. I clearly don’t know everything about you from that one post – but that is how you presented yourself. I do not think smokers are bad people; you smoke – we all do some things that are not good for us. But don’t think it is ok to negatively affect the health of others; It’s not. Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:55:02 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39115 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39116 Carly- I love you. I want to make babies with you. Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:02:19 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39116 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39129 I honestly don’t think a few smokers smoking in the stairs really affect people that much. I mean smoke can be nasty but I have the feeling that the people behind this whining do it more out of moral righteousness. Honestly, you receive more carcinogens, as someone said, from cars driving past the sidewalks than a few dudes killing themselves outside your building. Geez people. What next, are you gonna ban people from using cars? Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:56:34 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39129 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39130 Amir- You are wrong. I admit that I whine about cigarette smoke. But it’s not out of concern for the environment. And it’s not out of concern over exposure to carcinogens (I just don’t spend that much time in places that allow smoking). I dislike encountering cigarette smoke because it’s disgusting. It stinks! Plus, I never know when exposure to cigarette smoke will trigger an asthma attack that will inconvenience me (at the least!). It’s like driving by a dead skunk in the road. It’s not really hurting most people, but they still don’t like it. It violates the senses, and most people wish that it wasn’t there. Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:21:28 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39130 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39131 thats such a dumb reason. most people in saudi arabia probably dont like women to show skin. what if most people (unfortunately i am the minority) think that fake tanned women look like carrotcakes- should there carrotcake faces be banned from the public? Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:31:55 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39131 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39137 Matt, if smoking were banned on campus you would really get in your car and drive off campus to smoke a cigarette? Exactly what is your IQ? Mon, 27 Apr 2009 08:32:44 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39137 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39140 You people have to be some of the biggest babies that have ever graced the comments pages. I don’t smoke, but I realize that walking by smoke for 1.5 seconds doesn’t make you smell all day, won’t affect your health, definitely isn’t going to give you cancer, and won’t trigger an asthma attack. People like you are the reason this country is becoming such a sissified nation of litigious, selfish, weak morons. Grow up. Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:30:20 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39140 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39142 http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/secondhand_smoke/index.htm For those who think “only a little won’t hurt”, here’s the CDC’s website on “There is No Risk-Free Level of Exposure to Secondhand Smoke”: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet7.html Read. Think. Then post. Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:49:04 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39142 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39145 Hey Dave, Read. Thought. Post – Nowhere does it say walking by secondhand smoke for a couple of seconds will cause any harm. It says “brief”. “Brief” isn’t very scientific, so until you provide me with an duration of exposure and a frequency of exposure, your argument is invalid. Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:20:17 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39145 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39152 Boo Hoo – “1.5 seconds…won’t affect your health…definitely isn’t going to give you cancer” – This is much more unsubstantiated than my argument. Any argument that smoking does not cause harm in any amount will quickly prove to be a waste of time with a simple Literature search in primary journal index. You should truly not be attacking this article’s argument in this way; I’d suggest taking another route because you’re not going to get very far. Furthermore, the article also suggests that the smoke from people smoking within 25 ft delivers smoke into the classrooms multiple times throughout the day in Fee Hall via the doors and windows, so your “1.5 seconds” no longer applies. Please provide evidence that a smoker’s choice to smoke only affects the smoker, EVEN IN OUTDOOR AREAS. Good luck. Can these altruistic arguments the author makes transcend to other social problems – such as car pollution and fast food? Absolutely! Please start thinking of how to solve these problems too! Don’t just use our downfalls as a species to justify our lack of desire to problem solve. Perhaps we should not be thinking in the way of apathetic dissolution because we have so far to go to make this world a better place. Perhaps instead we can look at all the good we’ve done and apply those ambitions to new endeavors like ridding the world of poor nutrition in fast food, creating less-polluting vehicles, and fighting for the cessation of smoking among many other things! One more argument: Fee hall is the home of a few medical schools on campus. How does it look to visitors of the school and guest professors when they come to lecture in a smokey building? These guests probably don’t see tolerance… Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:03:12 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39152 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39155 I’m not attacking the article. I also don’t want secondhand smoke inside buildings, and am all for a 25 ft rule. My argument is with people that are complaining about walking past smoke outside (asking for a campus-wide ban on smoking). There is no solid evidence that suggests that a few seconds of exposure to secondhand smoke a couple times a week in an outdoor environment will cause any harm. So, my evidence is that there is no evidence contrary – just vague generalizations in journals that say “brief exposure”. Moral of my story is that I don’t agree with the, “I don’t like it, so banish it completely” approach to a solution (to any problem). Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:34:35 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39155 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39157 Boo Hoo – You should really check you sources, not just say something because you think it’s right. The results of the smoking ban in New York City suggests that there IS harm being done to the patrons of a community which allows for smoke even in outside areas – warranting a just complaint from those who want a ban on campus. See the article below or do your own search to find further evidence, because just one article doesn’t make a difference. I just simply don’t have time to post the amount of literature out there supporting a smoking ban. “Declines in Hospital Admissions for Acute Myocardial Infarction in New York State After Implementation of a Comprehensive Smoking Ban.” American Journal of Public Health v. 97 no11 (November 2007) p. 2035-9. The conclusion of this article was “Comprehensive smoking bans constitute a simple, effective intervention to substantially improve the public’s health.” Your move… Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:11:15 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39157 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39161 Comprehensive New York Ban = indoors. People in New York still smoke outdoors. You seem to keep missing that all-important indoor-outdoor thing. I don’t think you really undestand how an enclosed area has a dramatic effect on air flow and particle distribution. Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:38:07 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39161 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39174 Smokers outdoors ignoring smoking rules = smoke indoors. You are in agreement with the notion that smokers should not be allowed to smoke within the 25 ft radius. So that’s all well and good. But what if this law is not enforced – which it isn’t and probably won’t be even with articles like this? Why not go one step further and eliminate the problem; eliminate a burden that is only causing destruction of health. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network has shown that City-Wide and Business smoking bans have in fact influenced people to quit smoking – which has a resounding affect on health care costs. Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:25:14 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39174 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39178 Dave – I can agree with both of those points (ignoring smoking rules and health care costs). However, my feeling is that people are gonna partake in a myriad of things that affect their health negatively (eat poorly, smoke, play sports, mine coal, etc) and I’m trying to be a bit more realistic with the argument than some of these other posters. I think a 25 ft rule can, and should be, enforced. But, I don’t agree with banning smoking campus-wide because I don’t like the smell of smoke for a couple of seconds while walking outside. It’s really not gonna kill me. As far as the indirect consequences of smoking or other bad habits, I like the approach that my employer has begun – charge a la carte for health care costs. If you smoke, you pay more. If you have high cholesterol, you pay more – so on and so forth. There are mandatory screenings every six months. If you choose to be unhealthy, oh well, you just pay more. Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:01:21 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39178 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39183 “Walking by smoke for 1.5 seconds … won’t trigger an asthma attack.” Really? You sure about that? You want to try out my asthma for a day and report back to me? Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:50:30 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39183 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39186 Kristin – I can actually smell your BS, as it has traveled from you, through your computer, over the internet, and out through my computer. You say, “Plus, I never know when exposure to cigarette smoke will trigger an asthma attack that will inconvenience me (at the least!).” If that 1.5 seconds of walking by a smoker had ever triggered an asthma attack, you would have said that it had happened. If you’d like, I’ll send you a link to a plastic bubble supplier so you can walk around all day without being exposed to anything harmful in our environment. Enjoy the swine flu. Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:15:32 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39186 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39188 Your indifference for doing good is hurting my heart, Boo hoo, and probably Kristin’s and others’ who wish this world to be a better place and try everyday to make it so. There are ways to side-step the real issues by adding things like a la carte health care or 25 ft rules. I do not believe this sends the right message – ‘you can buy your way out of bad choices’. The consumer might think he/she can simply pay more for bad cholesterol or smoking, but this cuts back on subsidization of health care for other burdens which plague the world. To think that resources could be spared by helping people make the decision to quit smoking is a great step towards building a better, healthier world; one which spends money on things that are pandemic and more important that the greed intrinsic to cigarette smoking. Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:48:37 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39188 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39362 God would be very angry with this letter. God allows people to choose their habits and what they would like to do with their life. Tobacco is an important part of the economy, and is a natural product put on this planet by God. Smoking should be encouraged by doctors as it brings in millions of dollars of profit to the health care system on a yearly basis. Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:24:52 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39362 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39365 Ug. The comments are boggling. Glad I didn’t do my undergrad here. Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:43:39 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39365 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39366 MSUCHM — Did you seriously mean to say that God, the creator of life, would be angry that his children wanted to preserve their health? You need to reevaluate your principles. Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:47:18 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39366 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39388 Look it up. Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:49:18 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39388 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39401 If people don’t care about their own body, fine with me, and the doctors should be happy they get to treat (and charge!) for conditions ranging from cancer to COPD and emphysema and such, but seriously, the fact that people can get all these conditions from just inhaling second hand smoke sort of pisses me off. I think “God” also gave us clean air, and grass and trees and poppy plants.. and carbon that is the basis for so many many drugs that people decide to inject, inhale or stick in crazy places… it’s amazing what humans can corrupt, really. War-torn areas of the world also spring to mind… and the US economy.. the point is, we ought to work towards improving things if we can, on a small scale, at least standing ourselves on the same evidence-based intellectual ground as other universities and places of higher learning/englightenment. Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:56:13 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39401 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39402 It’s fine if people want to smoke, but when it starts to affect the lives of others by indirectly forcing them to inhale their secondhand smoke, then you are infringing upon the rights of others. It’s not fair to tell someone that they cannot smoke, so let them smoke and do their own bodily damage on their own time and own space. When a person smokes in a public venue, other people do not have the option of not inhaling that smoke. That’s like saying lets let the alcoholics drink all they want (which they can) and that it’s okay for them to go drive after several drinks, and likely cause a car accident. They are at fault for damaging the health and life of other humans who drive on the roads, just like smokers who are allowed to smoke in public venues are damaging the lungs of others who cannot choose to inhale only the “good air”. Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts, behaviors, and actions, but it’s when it directly impinges upon the rights of others when it should not be accepted. If smokers were ticketed for their illegal smoking near buildings, they’d likely move further away and follow the distance requirement. That law might sound dumb, but in other states where jay-walking is strictly enforced, you better bet those people think twice before running across the street without a cross walk. Minor issue, yes, but when there is a punishment for the crime, people are more likely to follow the rules. Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:00:23 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39402 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39411 As a fellow COM student and a pregnant one, I can honestly say that my rights were infringed every time I walked into the stairwells and sat in the classrooms near those entrances. I am paying a lot of money to get my education and I don’t appreciate having to smell someone else’s disgusting smoke that was not just hurting the smoker, but also myself and my developing baby. This is a rule of the university and I would expect people follow it. I don’t see why anyone is arguing this. If someone cheats in class, should there be repercussions? Absolutely, it’s in the student handbook. Why are you justifying behaviors that are clearly against university guidelines? I don’t care if smoking is not banned, but if there is a rule that states 25 feet away from the doorways, THEN STAND 25 FEET AWAY FROM THE DOORWAYS! For pete’s sake is that really too difficult. Maybe being inconvenienced will help smoker’s to quit (a future doc can hope, right!) Thanks Dave for making a stand and trying to make a difference and enforce university policy. Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:22:13 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39411 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39412 As a fellow COM student and a pregnant one, I can honestly say that my rights were infringed every time I walked into the stairwells and sat in the classrooms near those entrances. I am paying a lot of money to get my education and I don’t appreciate having to smell someone else’s disgusting smoke that was not just hurting the smoker, but also myself and my developing baby. This is a rule of the university and I would expect people follow it. I don’t see why anyone is arguing this. If someone cheats in class, should there be repercussions? Absolutely, it’s in the student handbook. Why are you justifying behaviors that are clearly against university guidelines? I don’t care if smoking is not banned, but if there is a rule that states 25 feet away from the doorways, THEN STAND 25 FEET AWAY FROM THE DOORWAYS! For pete’s sake is that really too difficult. Maybe being inconvenienced will help smoker’s to quit (a future doc can hope, right!) Thanks Dave for making a stand and trying to make a difference and enforce university policy. Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:22:14 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39412 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39618 I hate it when I walk by down the hall and someone “Fluffs” in front of me. It is gross and adversely effects my health by making me feel sick. Numerous journals have proven “Fluffing” may adversely effect the health of the “fluffer” and those around them… aka. “the fluffees.” Sat, 02 May 2009 16:27:38 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/39618