UNT campus to go smoke-free in 2013

MeanGreenTexan · May 16, 2012

There is no part of the Constitution that says that. You're thinking of the Declaration of Independence.

I think he meant to quote the Magna Carta: "...My anaconda don't want none unless you've got buns hun."

Censored by Laurie · May 16, 2012

I think he meant to quote the Magna Carta: "...My anaconda don't want none unless you've got buns hun."

Roger de Montbegon, Baron of Hornby-with-Farleton was a renowned chubby-chaser.

Quoner · May 16, 2012

Roger de Montbegon, Baron of Hornby-with-Farleton was a renowned chubby-chaser.

Even fewer people cite the More Cushion for the Pushin' doctrine, but it played a big role during the Renaissance.

Censored by Laurie · May 16, 2012

Even fewer people cite the More Cushion for the Pushin' doctrine, but it played a big role during the Renaissance.

Michelangelo's David is this doctrine personified. Skinny dudes like fat girls...even in 16th century Italy.

UNTFan23 · May 16, 2012

I am not a smoker but I am not going to support policies or laws to keep smokers from smoking.

The rights of the smoker falls under Freedom of Speech and the part of the Constitution that says "...Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." It is all about balance. You can have your rights so long as they don't infringe on my rights.

Is making them smoke outside not enough? Is making them smoke only in a designated area outside not enough?

This works until someone's right to smoke or drink becomes harmful to someone else. Smoking and other tobacco products have a direct link to cancer and other diseases. You don't have to smoke to actually get something like Emphysema or Lung Cancer.

Like I stated earlier, enforcing the state law regarding smoking around entrances to state buildings/facilities and enforcing litter laws will go a long ways towards discourage smoking on campus without an outright ban.

TheTastyGreek · May 16, 2012

This works until someone's right to smoke or drink becomes harmful to someone else.

I believe the threat of smoking was best enunciated in the 4 primary theses of Rock Master Scott and the Dynamic Three.

Monkeypox · May 16, 2012

This works until someone's right to smoke or drink becomes harmful to someone else. Smoking and other tobacco products have a direct link to cancer and other diseases. You don't have to smoke to actually get something like Emphysema or Lung Cancer.

Exactly why they should ban smokers and grills from the parking and tailgate areas at football games, right? And hopefully, soon, they'll ban automobiles from campus as well.

UNTflyer · May 16, 2012

I believe the threat of smoking was best enunciated in the 4 primary theses of Rock Master Scott and the Dynamic Three.

Well played, sir. Your obscure yet germane cultural references make you the Dennis Miller of GoMeanGreen.com.

Green P1 · May 16, 2012

When are they going to ban seeing eye dogs? I'm tired of all the poop.

UNTflyer · May 16, 2012

Really, if we're going to ban things that MAY cause cancer to people nearby, we need to ban the following on campus:

Auto Emissions

Cell Phones

Sunlight

Electomagnetic fields

Gas and charcoal grills

Microwave ovens

Bonfires

Just to name a few.

And honestly, why are smoking areas not sufficient? There is a smoking area at Apogee and almost everyone seems to follow the rules with the help of event staff enforcement. The only way it doesn't work is when smoking Nazis want to push restrictions farther.

(I win the Godwin Award)

TheTastyGreek · May 16, 2012

Well played, sir. Your obscure yet germane cultural references make you the Dennis Miller of GoMeanGreen.com.

Thank you, sir.

I don't mean to get off on a rant here, but... I'm glad I didn't undermine your "I'm a polite smoker" argument by telling everyone about the time I saw you put out a cigarette on a newborn baby's forehead.

I certainly can't deny that you were smiling politely and making eye contact while you did it.

Ninjaface.

gksmith · May 18, 2012

This works until someone's right to smoke or drink becomes harmful to someone else. Smoking and other tobacco products have a direct link to cancer and other diseases. You don't have to smoke to actually get something like Emphysema or Lung Cancer.

Like I stated earlier, enforcing the state law regarding smoking around entrances to state buildings/facilities and enforcing litter laws will go a long ways towards discourage smoking on campus without an outright ban.

So you can still make things even for all by having the designated smoking area far enough away from enterances. The governing body, in this case North Texas, can make it a pain in the ass to be a smoker by putting the area away from the enterance and out in the open enough. If it is raining that day...the smoker gets to choose which they want to do - get their fix and get cold and wet or not get their fix and stay dry.

Hard to argue against "we provided smokers a place...too bad it is inconvenient for them."

Green P1 · May 19, 2012

UNT leaders trampling on students Constitutional right to smoke?

Question, no info.

greenminer · May 19, 2012

voluntary euthanasia. thoughts?

Proud North Texan · May 29, 2012

The designated area must be there in order to do the free smoke campus

KRAM1 · May 29, 2012

Get over it and move along...better yet...stop smoking drinking. How people can still be smokers drinkers in this day and age with all the knowledge they have about the health benefits of not smoking drinking to both themselves and their loved ones is beyond me...

Get over it and move along...better yet...stop smoking eating bad foods. How people can still be smokers bad food eaters in this day and age with all the knowledge they have about the health benefits of not smoking eating bad foods to both themselves and their loved ones is beyond me...

See how that logic can so easily be applied to anything deemed "not good for you?"

Such an old tired supposed justification for smoking....either come up with something original and at least half-way logical or just stop parroting all the same old "I want to smoke stuff"...sorry Flyer, on this one you are going to lose...and so is your health, by the way, if you don't stop puffing away. But, I do appreciate yopur concern for "liberty" here...on that issue we can find lots of room for agreement.

UNT90 · May 30, 2012

Such an old tired supposed justification for smoking....either come up with something original and at least half-way logical or just stop parroting all the same old "I want to smoke stuff"...sorry Flyer, on this one you are going to lose...and so is your health, by the way, if you don't stop puffing away. But, I do appreciate yopur concern for "liberty" here...on that issue we can find lots of room for agreement.

Or are we just justifying a bad behavior here?

Flyer wants to smoke. CBL wants to toke. Skiver wants to run the 2-3 to stop outside shooting, Quoner wants all words spelled correctly (cell phone excuse not acceptable), and I want UTSA to fail miserably to support my argument that they are not worthy of CUSA inclusion (because they ARE NOT WORTHY!!).

Rudy · May 30, 2012

If you want to limit the number of cigarette butts then you should have plenty of cigarette disposers and trash cans.

You can limit the number of butts on the ground if you cite people for littering.

Rudy · May 30, 2012

There are a lot of employers who are restricting tobacco use, giving preference to non smokers, or flat out being a non smoker as a prerequesite to employment. It has to do with providing health benefits. Cutting out health risk factors puts $$$$$ back in their pockets.

With the federal government taking control of healthcare, more places are going to ban smoking as a way to cut premium costs. Same goes for government employers. The federal government took control of healthcare as a way to make money. It would negate their profits to hire smokers or to operate smoking workplaces.

For the record, I am a non smoker and asthmatic. But I don't agree with this policy. Enforce the smoking distance from entrances, and enforce litter laws with regards to cigarette butts.

Quoner · May 30, 2012

Or are we just justifying a bad behavior here?

Flyer wants to smoke. CBL wants to toke. Skiver wants to run the 2-3 to stop outside shooting, Quoner wants all words spelled correctly (cell phone excuse not acceptable), and I want UTSA to fail miserably to support my argument that they are not worthy of CUSA inclusion (because they ARE NOT WORTHY!!).

I also want more posters.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · May 30, 2012

The less smoking the better. Screw the Libertarians! Take that, Ron Paul, GOP imposter! Old, farty holocaust belittler! No smoking on the UNT campus! We will fight terrorism abroad and we will have smoke-free college campuses! Tyranny! Tyranny! The Constitution gone to hell!

meangreendork · May 30, 2012

There are a lot of employers who are restricting tobacco use, giving preference to non smokers, or flat out being a non smoker as a prerequesite to employment. It has to do with providing health benefits. Cutting out health risk factors puts $$$$$ back in their pockets.

It also means putting money back into their employee's pockets if they're not total jackwads about it. Employees with obesity, diabetes, smoking habits and other preventable health conditions cost employers piles of money, and in the process, they cost the regular person piles of money. For every person that's a smoker, there's a handful of healthy, non-smoking folks who are either directly paying for the care of this individual or they're paying for their coverage even if that smoker never utilizes their health benefits.

I know people want to talk about personal liberties and all, but if the unspent healthcare dollars I put in every month go somewhere, I'd rather it go to another employee who has a condition that's unavoidable, or emergency care due to an accident as opposed to helping someone not die of lung cancer because they couldn't put a cigarette down.

I'm betting that there's also a risk management/insurance angle in addition to health care cost angles.

Monkeypox · May 31, 2012

It also means putting money back into their employee's pockets if they're not total jackwads about it. Employees with obesity, diabetes, smoking habits and other preventable health conditions cost employers piles of money, and in the process, they cost the regular person piles of money. For every person that's a smoker, there's a handful of healthy, non-smoking folks who are either directly paying for the care of this individual or they're paying for their coverage even if that smoker never utilizes their health benefits.

Let me know when the morbidly obese can't eat donuts on campus or at their workplace.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Monkeypox

Green P1 · May 31, 2012

This thread makes me wanna smoke.

meangreendork · May 31, 2012

Let me know when the morbidly obese can't eat donuts on campus or at their workplace.

You can't really force that since they don't have the same kind of stigma. Plus, I don't even know what secondhand Krispy Kreme looks like and I don't think I want to.