23 CommentsAs we speak the Tobacco Working Group, a committee of students, faculty and administrators, is presenting their recommendations and very long report [PDF] to CCSC. Briefly, the group recommends that the university establish (and actually enforce) a “consistent distance rule” delineating a radius around Morningside campus buildings where you can’t smoke. Details to come!
Update 9:52 PM: According to Class of 2011 President Sean Udell, the report will now go to “what’s the Christian name for a waiting room?” The report states that the Tobacco Working Group will submit its recommendations to Vice President Scott Wright, although it is unclear what action will be taken next and by whom.
Loading …
23 Comments
@non-smoker eh…I don’t see the need for us to be like Barnard. The idea that non-smokers are inhaling a significant amount of second-hand smoke at Columbia sounds like a load of bull (we’re all breathing NYC air anyways). Just because you don’t like the smell of cigarettes does not mean smoking itself should be effectively banned. I don’t smoke, but I certainly don’t mind the smell of cigarettes. My fellow non-smokers need to quit whining about the smoke outside of Butler
@Anonymous WTF????? omg you cant ban smoking outdoors. nonsmokers- you have all the fresh air you want. nobody is forcing you to stand next to us and inhale everything we exhale
@coob good thing the rules only apply to tobacco
@... wow that report is kindof a disaster…
first off, they state that their final recommendation is a “consistent distance rule” but they don’t elaborate on what exactly that is. they spend pages and pages on showing nice graphs of whether or not the community is “for” or “against” some nebulous policy, but they don’t fully define their final recommendation?
the multi-round voting methodology is bizarre. is it irv? doesn’t look like it. looks more like airv, arbitrary instant runoff voting.
as far as those going on about having to walk through clouds of smoke outdoors… one day, you’ll have to walk down a real city street, and on those real city streets you’ll find *gasp* people smoking. so you’re really only putting off something that is not only of miniscule importance, it’s also pretty much inevitable. now unless you wanna grow up to be like that weird barnard prof that keeps getting written up in the local media for getting bars in soho shut down, maybe this might be a good time to take things down a notch.
@Anonymous I’ll agree that the report is a disaster. “Request voluntary compliance”? Meaning that compliance is optional? And absolutely no mention of coordination with public safety? (Oh, wait, they did, they kicked a can down the road — “Develop process to report violations and/or discuss concerns.”)
How the hell will this be enforced, without some public safety guard literally standing by all the time? Do they really expect us to call in a report, wait 10 minutes for someone of authority to show up, then have that person do nothing because all the smokers are (temporarily) gone? Or do they expect us to take names? Really? Then it boils down to he said/she said, unless you have a shitload of witnesses who are actually willing to be a part of the Dean’s Discipline process. All for a cigarette ban.
As for putting off the inevitable, that doesn’t make sense. There’s a difference between getting occasionally exposed to second-hand smoke from a city street and constantly having to navigate through the Butler smokers every night.
@Anonymous Amendment: Okay, enforcement can work if we’re all encouraged to take cell phone pics of violators.
I’m leery of that.
@Person Why is a comment hidden by default if it has more likes than dislikes?
@Hans Your comment’s parent is not quite as grey as poorly-rated comments—because it has a high number of votes but the difference in up/down votes is still below a threshold.
@umm Maybe I won’t have to walk through a noxious cloud of second-hand smoke in front of YOUR MOM *fingers crossed*
@non smoker smoke outside of butler is nothing compared to smoke in front of dodge.
@Anonymous Maybe I won’t have to walk through a noxious cloud of second-hand smoke in front of Butler *fingers crossed*
@smoking is funny
@Anonymous I think its called purgatory
@Anonymous This is stupid. If it is anywhere outside, then it isn’t a bother. This is unless the smoke is flowing into the building to any noticeable extent. In this case, there will always be a security guard on duty that should be in charge of telling people to move the fuck away.
to be consistent, we should ban fatties indoors and within 20 feet of a door.
@Anonymous How is this stupid? I for one hate walking behind a person who’s smoking only and having to breathe in secondhand smoke. I have no issue with them destroying their own lungs, but I’d like to leave my own lungs intact.
As for fat people, how are they relevant to this?
@relevent thank you.
also, people shouldn’t have to go out of their way to avoid the smokers in front of butler because they don’t want to inhale secondhand smoke.
@Anonymous *who’s smoking and having to
@LOL not fat PEOPLE, silly! fatty: a large, nicely packed joint.
@Anonymous Also, how is this stupid? For those of us that have life-threatening asthma and start wheezing in the presence of secondhand smoke, the smoking ban is not stupid.
@Anonymous would it kill someone to put up signs?
oh right, the non-smokers.
@Anonymous How are they going to enforce this? Issue fines?
@Anonymous The 20 foot rule right now seems consistent, it’s just not enforced.
@relevent yes please.