<p>
</p>
<p>[Full</a> Article Here](<a href=“The Record - The Source - Washington University in St. Louis”>The Record - The Source - Washington University in St. Louis)</p>
<p>Wow, another reason to go there for me.</p>
<p>Wow. There’s going to be a lot of really upset people regarding this.</p>
<p>But either way, it’ll make my life better- I’m sick of walking past a bunch of people smoking right outside the library.</p>
<p>I first learned of this a couple of months ago. One of the book store employees told me about this. Frankly, I find this disturbing for a number of reasons. First, even if one accepts a complete smoking ban, a tobacco ban is quite different. If somebody uses snuff, who else has their health impacted negatively? Nobody. So this is an outright example of mother knows best infantalization that is too common here as it is. Second, the value of banning smoking all together is problematic. There are many, many employees who take their breaks to smoke. Now that is an impossibility. By being unable to indulge their needs, they will become less productive employees. </p>
<p>Personally, I feel the current system of being allowed to smoke in any outdoor area is great. But, if restrictions are to be made, they should only apply to smoke-producing tobacco, and still recognize certain areas as allowing smoking. Keep in mind, I say this as somebody who isn’t terrible impacted, since I live on property not owned by the university, and only have the occasional cigar (probably once a month or so), which I smoke either on my balcony or in a bar.</p>
<p>I’d only even heard that they were considering doing this about a week ago… I’m surprised that they made the decision, and i’d definitely agree that it’s going to be controversial. On the other hand, a program like this can probably save some lives, so I can definitely see where the administration is coming from. I hope they offer the “free smoking cessation medications” or whatever to any Bon Appetite employees that want it as well, though…</p>
<p>While the selfish person in me is very happy about this, as I share Mike and Johnson’s feelings, the principled person in me agrees with gprime. This takes it too far. Why don’t they just make it a “no smoking in busy places” ban and designate certain places as smoking areas, like a parking lot or back entrance of a building? There’s nothing wrong with that.
I’m assuming that part of the thought process in this initiative is that it will push these people to stop smoking because the world has made it too hard for them. However, I know how hard it is to stop smoking. My father smokes and has been trying to stop for years. His main problem is that the prices are too high. Around Chicago, a pack of cigarettes is almost $7, and even more in the city. This has made him want to stop, but it hasn’t worked. Now, if my dad worked at WashU, he wouldn’t be able to quit. He’d have to find a new job because they wouldn’t allow him a couple half-hour breaks in his day where he’d be able to walk off-campus to smoke a cigarette. Now, all students, staff, and professors will have to walk off-campus to smoke a cigarette, and that’s asking too much of people. These people aren’t evil human beings. We shouldn’t punish them for the “greater good.”</p>
<p>Sorry for the rant.</p>
<p>Oh well, if there’s nothing I can do about it, I might as well enjoy the smoke-free air.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They’re already less productive by virtue of the fact that they’re running outside every 20 minutes to have a smoke (and staying out there for 7-10 minutes each time).</p>
<p>If I had to choose between the two, I’d take the inefficient employee who doesn’t reek of tobacco and *doesn’t *make my office reek of tobacco over the inefficient employee who stinks up the entire workplace.</p>
<p>Go WashU!!! Now other schools should follow suit.</p>
<p>Honestly I was more under the impression that this policy change was more for the sake of the smokers than the non-smokers. I don’t smoke and don’t really mind secondhand smoke at all, it’s just that their are health effects either way. </p>
<p>I don’t know that this policy change is really “bad” for anyone (except possibly some employees), in that it’s in their best interests. It does seem a bit odd that the school is approaching the problem through a ban, as opposed to more information on the risks of tobacco. I’d have to disagree with the argument that having designated smoking areas would be a better solution here - I’m not sure it’s secondhand smoke that the administration is most worried about (i could be wrong though). I guess we’ll see how this ends up working out. Anyone know if they’re going to start offering to help people quit immediately, or will that start in 2010, with the ban?</p>
<p>I’m really happy about this. I think it’s really unfortunate that students smoke, because the health risks are very real. They are going to have smoking cessation classes and reduced fee smoking cessation meds for employees and faculty. It’s not about punishing them. I know it probably will be very hard for some people, and I truly feel bad that they really don’t have a choice if they want to stay at Wash U. But I’m all for something that gets people to stop smoking. I hate seeing people doing something that has really severe consequences for their health.</p>
<p>scwymer - I hate it too, but no one put me in charge of their personal decisions regarding their health. And guess what? I don’t want that job or anyone else to have it either.</p>
<p>well said, fallenchemist. that’s precisely how I feel about it, too.</p>
<p>Yes, but scwymer, notice how you said their health. If it is THEIR health at risk, why is it YOUR (or as the case may be, the university’s) place to impose policies controlling it?</p>
<p>Another point I’d not thought to make earlier, but that ought to be said, is that it reduces their credibility. That is, if you have no respect for the rules, you either won’t follow them, or you’ll do so to the extent that the letter of it requires, purposely violating its spirit. And stupid policies like this only encourage disrespect for the rules. I know that personally, while I intend to remain here, I’ve lost all respect for this institution, and will actively discourage people I know from coming here. This, on top of the red light from FIRE, and the pervasive liberalism (which helped cause this mess) really are a great discredit to the university.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What are you talking about?</p>
<p>And how is the liberalism at WUSTL any more pervasive than at any other of our fine institutions of higher learning? The grass is not always greener…</p>
<p>johnson181 - i think I found what gprime was referring to - appears there’s an organization called Foundation for Individual Rights in Education that rates universities’ free speech policies. WUSTL seems to get a red light rating cuz of certain residential life policies regarding posting on bulletin boards, and wording of res life’s discrimination/ harassment policies. A “random” search of about 10 schools on that website turned up mostly red lights (and one yellow and one green). More indication that the grass is not always greener (nor, I guess, are the FIRE ratings) … Reading between the lines of his/her various posts, Gprime seems to have some axe to grind about something…</p>
<p>I should have said that I do agree that to the extent second hand smoke is harmful, and that smoking is smelly and dirty, the university is well within its rights to limit it to certain areas, as someone suggested above. That would seem to me to be the logical path, since as was also said it could be behind buildings and/or in places where it would be confined to those who smoke to the greatest extent possible and not impinge on others. This total ban seems like a step too far, denying or being ignorant of the realities of the situation for those who smoke.</p>
<p>In all seriousness, this in conjunction with the water bottle ban have definitely swayed me away from washu. i dont know if i can go to a college that treats its students like children and that gets worked up about such insignificant things as a breath of smoke or some plastic water bottles. why not ban coke bottles? why not ban drinking? oh, because the fad of going green or healthy choices ends there, because those decisions would be unpopular. its a complete bunch of bs to appease the 90%+ liberals there</p>
<p>The water bottle ban is simply to encourage using reusable water bottles. There is no real reason why a person would need to buy bottled water. You can get perfectly good tap water from any of the sinks in St. Louis (and for the record, St. Louis has stricter water codes than any bottled water company).<br>
Coke bottles, on the other hand, are completely different. You can’t simply turn on a sink and have soda come out. </p>
<p>If you were swayed by something like that, you’d find this “problem” at a majority of universities.
I myself am not liberal (I’m very moderate) and certainly no tree hugger, but I think there’s a bigger issue if you have a problem with a campus trying to reduce disposable plastic bottle waste.</p>
<p>Much as I love WashU, I can totally understand obeythecouger’s point. The issue is not so much either policy, objectionable as they may be, but what together they represent. And that is the university deciding students and staff cannot be trusted to make appropriate decisions, thereby requiring paternalistic-type policies that remove choice. And really, he’s right. There is immense hypocrisy in the school’s policy as it reads. For instance, I cannot buy a bottle of water in Bear’s Mart, but Wydown Water can continue to operate, thereby creating an outright monopoly.</p>
<p>Palmalk did correctly summarize what FIRE is, and what the ratings mean. However, the way he wrote it off, and tried to avoid the issue by attacking the poster (me), is just unsound. If you look over the actual policies that FIRE takes issue with, you’ll realize that you’ve potentially run afoul of parts of it every day. Take a look: [FIRE</a> - The State of Free Speech on Campus: Washington University in St. Louis](<a href=“http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/10407.html]FIRE”>Newsdesk | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression)</p>
<p>As much as I don’t agree with the decision on the smoking ban,since I am absolutely opposed to smoking; I find comments by obeythe cougar to make no sense. I believe that people should have freedom of choice as long as it does not harm others. If indeed these are the criteria to judge a university by, then obeythecougar would possibly find another school to be a better fit. You pick your battles without making them into wars. If indeed that is the standard to attend or not attend a school, then I would probably say - don’t attend. That is such a superficial standard - that WashU probably would not be a good fit.</p>