University of Louisiana prepares smoke- and tobacco-free policy

[CajunsHat]

I don't believe lungs were designed for smoking but I seriously doubt the study about "increased incidences."

I'm not bashing your quote, I read it elsewhere and from an authority on the subject. It didn't make sense then or now.

The culture used to be smoke any time any where.

This new culture of mostly segregated smoking by a shrinking portion of the population, simply doesn't allow for "increased incidences"

jmo

i respect your opinion. But there is on going research into "third hand smoke." And current research is showing that the pollutents from smoking do linger around on clothes, furniture, etc...this research material is new and im not advocating that its "set in stone to be true" but it does seem to have some growing merit. IMO
im not gonna post links to research articles. but anyone who realllllly wants to look further into just to prove a point, feel free to go to Dupre Library or any library with research articles.

[CajunsHat]

And once you get your way and smoking is outlawed, what will be your excuse then for people dying of lung cancer? Maybe it will be "residual smoke". Or maybe just the memory of smoke.

And while we are using anecdotal evidence I know a number of lifelong smokers who lived to a ripe old age before arriving at the same destination as every non-smoker. How do you explain that?

u mad bro?

[RCAJUN90]

simplessimism? That's not a word. Enjoy your life but don't force you habits on others. How hard is that to understand? When I was a smoker, I never smoked inside. Most cigar smokers don't inhale but they enjoy lighting one up and puffing away. Outside I say enjoy! Inside I say don't light the stogie. If you get hooked on cigars by standing next to someone enjoying one then it's your fault.

[CajunsHat]

since this thread has taken a small turn...

honestly, i see no harmful effects of ruling a campus to be "smoke-free"

Just like i believe every hospital should be "smoke-free" as well.

it only does good...does not harm. (except ____ off the smokers)

[RCAJUN90]

And once you get your way and smoking is outlawed, what will be your excuse then for people dying of lung cancer? Maybe it will be "residual smoke". Or maybe just the memory of smoke.

And while we are using anecdotal evidence I know a number of lifelong smokers who lived to a ripe old age before arriving at the same destination as every non-smoker. How do you explain that?

You mean you haven't found a cure for death Hammer? You really need to find one before you light up again! = - )

[DaddyCajun]

i respect your opinion. But there is on going research into "third hand smoke." And current research is showing that the pollutents from smoking do linger around on clothes, furniture, etc...this research material is new and im not advocating that its "set in stone to be true" but it does seem to have some growing merit. IMO
im not gonna post links to research articles. but anyone who realllllly wants to look further into just to prove a point, feel free to go to Dupre Library or any library with research articles.

I certainly agree with the 3rd hand smoke research, as WE in the medical field know that the skin is our largest organ and also the bodies largest portal into the body. Everyone has an acid base barrier that the epidermis uses to aid in trying to prevent viruses and bacteria from entering our bodies, along with other pathogens.

[Just1More]

since this thread has taken a small turn...

honestly, i see no harmful effects of ruling a campus to be "smoke-free"

Just like i believe every hospital should be "smoke-free" as well.

it only does good...does not harm. (except ____ off the smokers)

So you believe the smokers are better off leaving the campus, grabbing their little child from the sitter, and lighting up in the confines of their car? I know you don't agree with that, but it is an unintended consequence. Our office complex in BR instituted a "No smoking anywhere around our multiple building complex". It was intended to force the remaining smokers that did not succeed (or refused to participate) in the smoking cessation classes we offered. As a result, those remaining smokers would hide behind buildings near our complex, or even walk across busy streets to find a place to smoke. We finally decided to designate a safe outside area for them to smoke. It was safer (and less liable) than having them get run over or raped behind some building on their break.

I don't like poorly thought out plans that produce unintended consequences. X percent of 18,000 students are going to go to great lengths to find a place to smoke, even if it produces dangers, rather than giving up smoking.

[Turbine]

i respect your opinion. But there is on going research into "third hand smoke." And current research is showing that the pollutents from smoking do linger around on clothes, furniture, etc...this research material is new and im not advocating that its "set in stone to be true" but it does seem to have some growing merit. IMO
im not gonna post links to research articles. but anyone who realllllly wants to look further into just to prove a point, feel free to go to Dupre Library or any library with research articles.

I'm not doubting the danger, I am doubting "increased incidences.

Years ago 3rd hand smoke was inescapable.

[CajunsHat]

So you believe the smokers are better off leaving the campus, grabbing their little child from the sitter, and lighting up in the confines of their car? I know you don't agree with that, but it is an unintended consequence. Our office complex in BR instituted a "No smoking anywhere around our multiple building complex". It was intended to force the remaining smokers that did not succeed (or refused to participate) in the smoking cessation classes we offered. As a result, those remaining smokers would hide behind buildings near our complex, or even walk across busy streets to find a place to smoke. We finally decided to designate a safe outside area for them to smoke. It was safer (and less liable) than having them get run over or raped behind some building on their break.

I don't like poorly thought out plans that produce unintended consequences. X percent of 18,000 students are going to go to great lengths to find a place to smoke, even if it produces dangers, rather than giving up smoking.

i understand your gripe...and to my knowledge, or from what ive been told by certain people, there will be a small designated area for smokers. but the intent of this new rule is to remove the smokers from more public areas of campus (side walks, building entrances, benches, etc...) But like i also said previously, i dont have sympathy for smokers. its something they chose to get addicted to...so if rules are to be set that limit them from doing so, i say "oh well."

[CajunEXPRESS]

I have no sympathy for anyone who smokes, but I do worry about this big brother attitude we all have accepted. First the smoker, and before you know it there will be sin taxes on sugar, butter, meat. We already have it for alcohol, and other vices. You simply are missing the big picture.

Soon and currently the EPA is and will be taxing your carbon use. You will be big brother-ed into poverty. Don't fret that is OK because Big Brother will subsidize your vegetables, and solar cells from all the evil doers, and finally they will subsidize your bicycle from Chevron, Exon/Mobile, and British Petroleum.

China is loving our abandonment of heavy industry, China cares little for pollution, balancing hiring practices, or class action law suits. No doubt you will probably love poverty in your Utopian world, at least you will only be dying from poverty related issues. And since you value studies so much there are numerous studies that show conclusively that poverty reduces health, and your life length by more than any other vice by a lot.