Campus-wide smoking ban passed

By
Posted: Monday, December 3rd, 2012 at 8:40 pm | Last Updated: Saturday, December 8th, 2012 at 3:36 pm

View Comments Comments Print This Article Print This Email This Article Email This Tweet This Article Tweet This Add This Article to Delicious Delicious

A policy to ban smoking on campus was recently approved by Oakland University administration, according to OU Director of Media Relations Ted Montgomery.

The ban is scheduled to go in effect during the fall 2013 semester.

OU Student Congress Vice President Robbie Williford said both Cora Hanson, environmental health and life safety manager at OU, and Steve Roberts, assistant vice president of finance and administration, came to an OUSC meeting and handed them a notice stating that the non-smoking policy had passed. The policy entails the reasoning for the ban, the new policy, explanation of the policy and procedures to be taken if students and staff decide to disregard the new policy.

“Personally, we’ve (OUSC) seen a lot of students who are concerned with it. Some students are for it and others are against it,” Williford said. “OUSC wants to make sure the entire student body’s voices are heard before any decisions like these are passed.”

Williford said he believes students were disregarded in the decision-making process of the new smoking ban. He said when the idea was first brought to the OUSC’s attention, the proposal had already been submitted.

“The way the university went about it was confusing and I wish Hanson would have came to us earlier like last year,” Williford said.

He said he’s upset that the student’s voices weren’t heard right away, however, he is grateful that students were at least given a notice about the ban.

Smokers speak

Zane Smith, a junior studying physical therapy, said the university can’t take away his right to smoke.

“We have a lot of people that live on campus that are smokers and we pay large sums of money to live here,” Smith said. “I’ve thought about this a lot and I think the designated areas are enough.”

He said he understands why there is a 50-foot rule, especially by the dorms, and agrees that designated areas are needed to respect those who are not smokers.

One of the reasons for the ban is OU’s initiative to promote a healthy work and learning environment, according to Hanson.

“Secondhand smoke doesn’t support our goal of health and wellness, and allowing smoking on campus is a contradiction to what OU is trying to promote,” Hanson said.

Eric Lonczynski, a sophomore studying cinema studies, said he’s still going to smoke and the university can’t stop him.

“I don’t think anyone will follow this new policy, and if no one listens then they can only give out so many tickets,” Lonczynski said. “If they don’t know our name, then how will they have the authority to ticket us?”

Lonczynski said he doesn’t understand why OU did not allow students to vote on this new policy. He said if they would have allowed students to vote, he would respect the new policy more.

Nonsmokers respond

Andrea Lawassani and Hannah Lawassani, freshmen biology majors, both are nonsmokers. Andrea said she was almost burned by a cigarette walking to class.

“People tend to be careless about where they flick cigarettes,” Andrea said.

She said, however, that is the only direct interaction she’s had with the smokers on campus.

“Sitting in class with a smoker sitting in front of you who obviously just finished smoking a cigarette is distracting,” Andrea said. “It’s hard to concentrate especially when you are trying to take a test and all you can smell is the horrible odor of carcinogens.”

Hannah said she gets annoyed when a smoker is walking next to her and blows smoke halfway into her face.

She said there is usually a crowd of smokers near the entrances of buildings — not 50-feet away.

“I have really bad allergies. Smoke makes my eyes watery and it makes my throat close a bit,” Andrea said. “I’m happy about the ban.”

Joe Collision, a sophomore studying psychology, is a nonsmoker but he said he’s pretty indifferent on the subject.

“It’s outside, so it makes no difference to me and it’s not a big deal,” Collison said.

Williford said he hopes the university will inform the students more about the new ban so that the transition is a smooth one.

 

EMU


  • http://www.facebook.com/rhiannon.lynn Rhiannon Zielinski

    “I don’t think anyone will follow this new policy, and if no one listens then they can only give out so many tickets,” Lonczynski said. “If they don’t know our name, then how will they have the authority to ticket us?”

    Does this student understand how the legal system works? Or that OUPD truly are police officers? Good luck.

  • Jocelyn Baldwin

    It
    is a WONDERFUL idea. I was just on campus today and had to endure the
    smokers outside – no matter how far out of my way I try to walk, I still
    have to walk through clouds of smoke. My asthma can’t take it.

  • Mr_Buddy

    Great Policy. This will help so many people and if smoking is more important than an education, than those people need to seek some type of help.

  • Mr_Buddy

    No, and he will find out the hard way.

  • Lisa

    This is a rediculous measure. If smokers are outside, there should not be a problem with them smoking. I am not a smoker. If I was, I would be furious. We all pay good money to attend classes and (some) live at OU. This is just the administration’s agenda because other campus in the area are adopting the ban (MCC just enforced theirs this Novemeber!). Walking past a person smoking a cigarette OUTSIDE will not give you lung cancer. I’m sorry. Say what you will, but we can all be man enough to stand the smell of cigarettes for the 2 seconds we walk past it. Outside is a wide open area. If individual students have issues with individual smokers “blowing smoke in their face” and are upset by it they should stand up for themselves enough to say, “hey, can you please not blow smoke right at me?” This is rediculous!

  • jonik

    It is a sad mystery 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 neitherchallenged the substance of his determination nor fixed their ETS material.

    Any political education students 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 theharms 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 their insurers and investors.)

    History students 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”.

    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 prohibitions, is something else. See http://fauxbacco.blogspot.com for reference material apparently not yet provided at colleges or universities. Or just look up “Fauxbacco”.

    PS; Recent You Tube addition is Bill Drake interview about what a cigarette REALLY is. Search up “You tube Smoke and Illusion”…or add “…Bill Drake” for more accuracy. Then ask college-university officials if they have any economic links to parts of the cigarette cartel…especially pharmaceuticals, chlorine, pesticides, for-profit insurers-investors, ag biz, etc.

  • jonik

    To those with asthma who understandably don’t like smoke from cigs (or campfires, incense, church candles, BB Q, etc), please consider that your asthma may have been caused by immune damage caused by immune-suppressing dioxin exposures from chlorine processes.

    Then think about the un-labeled, un-prohibited, still legal dioxin-creating chlorine cigarette adulterants (pesticide residues and chlorine-bleached paper), and please consider blaming NOT the also-uninformed, victimized smokers, but, rightly and instead, the cigarette manufacturers, their suppliers, and their allies in public offices who STILL allow such harmful cigarette contaminants, and who fail to utter or demand a word of warning to anyone. (Those officials are now in the forefront of the “wholesome”, but fraudulent, “anti smoking”… anti behavior of primary victims…crusade.)

    Look up “dioxin immune suppression”, “dioxin asthma”, “dioxin cigarette smoke”, and “dioxin chlorine”, for starters. No secret….just ignored. Chemically sensitive people must not be put at war with other victims of the industrial chemical cartel…which includes most cig makers. Pick the right target for complaints.

  • jonik

    It is a sad mystery 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.

    Any political education students 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 theharms 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 their insurers and investors.)

    History students 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”.

    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 prohibitions, is something else. See http://fauxbacco.blogspot.com for reference material apparently not yet provided at colleges or universities. Or just look up
    “Fauxbacco”.

    PS; Recent You Tube addition is Bill Drake interview about what a cigarette REALLY is. Search up “You tube Smoke and Illusion”…or add “…Bill Drake” for more accuracy. Then ask college-university officials if they have any economic links to parts of the cigarette cartel…especially pharmaceuticals, chlorine, pesticides, for-profit insurers-investors, ag biz, etc.

  • B-Dub

    They move for a smoke-free campus started by taking away most of the places to dispose of cigarette butts, that way you can blame smokers for flinging cigarettes to the ground. Not saying anyone is justified in throwing a cigarette on the ground, but if you took away all but one of the dumpsters at the Student Apartments I’m sure the sidewalks would be lined with garbage bags.

    Also the effect of secondhand smoke outside is negligible. To the people who are that irritated by smoke, you should probably walk around with gas masks on anyway. Imagine asthma patrol going camping and trying to stop the practice of campfires.

  • cheyenne

    The obvious solution, is for all the smokers to smoke in the bathrooms
    on campus. There is no way anyone could ever prove who was smoking if
    the cigarette gets flushed down. Its warmer in the bathrooms too, and
    more convenient.