Top Menu

More Colleges Adopt Smoking Bans

/By

A growing number of U.S. colleges are adopting smoking bans. The Christian Science Monitor reports that many schools have adopted total bans, both indoors and out.

On Monday, the Ohio Board of Regents recommended a total ban on tobacco products at the state’s public colleges. In June, the University of Maryland announced all 12 of its institutions will become smoke free by July 2013. At schools in the City University of New York system, the use and advertising of tobacco will not be allowed beginning in September.

The American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation reports that as of July 1, 2012, there are at least 774 campuses that are 100 percent smoke free. According to the National Center for Tobacco Policy, between one-third and one-half of colleges in the United States have likely implemented a smoke-free policy, or are considering one.

The American College Health Association conducted a survey in the spring of 2011 that found 85 percent of college students described themselves as non-smokers, and 96 percent said they never used smokeless tobacco.

On most college campuses with smoking bans, the consequences for smoking are often nonexistent or minimal, the article notes. Sometimes repeat offenders will face university disciplinary measures, which vary from school to school. The policies generally are enforced by other students, who do not want to be around cigarette smoke.

4 Responses to this article

  1. Avatar of NYCeSmoke
    NYCeSmoke / August 3, 2012 at 12:58 pm

    it is bad that the colleges and learning organization are misuse of their rights . the health is the main thing smoking makes it bad.The purpose of the lungs are to en hale oxygen and occasional medicine via an inhaler. That’s it.

  2. Avatar of jonik
    jonik / July 27, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    It is very troubling that colleges…centers of learning…centers of science and medicine…accept the claims of the anti-smoking campaign.
    Are there no microscopes or other technologies on campus to analyze a typical cigarette to see if it even contains tobacco (the ostensible target of outrage and legislation), or if it’s only tobacco, or if it contains industrial contaminants that are already known to cause so-called “smoking-related” illnesses?
    Are there no researchers who might look up legal Case History to find that the commonly-used EPA material about harms of “ETS” (environmental tobacco smoke) was thrown out of Federal Court (by anti smoking judge Osteen) as fraudulent? The EPA has neither challenged the substance of his determination nor fixed their ETS material.
    Are there no political education students or professors who can find that the pushers of such smoke bans are invariably economically-linked to the parts of the cigarette industry that most want to scapegoat smokers and the public domain tobacco plant for the harms caused by non-tobacco cigarette adulterants?
    (This refers to many pesticides, dioxin-creating chlorine, paper, ag biz, pharmaceuticals that supply pesticides and additives, and suppliers of cellulose for fake tobacco, radioactive phosphate tobacco fertilizers, and burn accelerants…and all of their insurers and investors.)
    Are there no History students who might look at the origins of Reefer Madness…the war on that other smokable, medicinal plant, cannabis…and how that was promoted by pretty much the same pesticide, chlorine industrial cartel that now pushes “Tobacco Madness” …or “Reefer Madness II”?
    Banning Industrial Contamination of Smoking Products is a legitimate and urgent direction. Banning use of Mother Nature’s “sinful” tobacco plant, which By Itself hasn’t yet been studied to justify public-interest-level prohibitions, is quite something else. See for reference material apparently not available at colleges or universities.

  3. Scott Smith / July 30, 2012 at 12:34 pm

    You have got to be kidding. No one is taking the right of smokers to smoke away. But non-smokers have the right to not be exposed to someone elses dangerous habit. The purpose of the lungs are to enhale oxygen and occassionally medicine via an inhaler. That’s it. Anything else is incompatable with the human body thus all of the diseases that come with smoking (lungs, mouth, bladder, heart, etc) and smokeless tobacco (mouth and esophagus, etc.). Smoke all you want, just leave me out of your choice.

  4. Avatar of skycat
    skycat / August 7, 2012 at 10:36 am

    “No one is taking the right of smokers to
    smoke away.” Riiight. Feel free to smoke, as long you are not on campus property, in an apartment, within 50′ of a doorway or window, or in a park, or on a beach, etc. Remember that even if you ban smoking everywhere except Siberia, your lungs will never be protected from nature’s stealth carcinogen, radon, which is present indoors and outdoors.

Leave a Reply

Please read our comment policy and guidelines before you submit a comment. Your email address will not be published. Thank you for visiting Drugfree.org


three + = 10

Disclaimer:
Reproduction in whole or in part of this publication is strictly prohibited without prior consent. Photographic rights remain the property of Join Together and the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids. For reproduction inquiries, please e-mail jointogether@drugfree.org.