University at Buffalo - The State University of New York

Petro Violetov says:

I've been living in Japan for 11 years, they too have banned smoking on public places. But there are enclosed rooms and places where smokers can smoke. I am a smoker and the reason I started is the stress which I encounter in UB. Starting this fall, 100% smoke-free campus maybe a good time for me to quit, but I swear to god, the moment I see a faculty smoking on-campus I will start again!

Posted by Petro Violetov, Just a Racial policy, 07/06/10

Demire Coffin-Williams says:

Anyone notice how this is not being enforced? There are still smokers right in fron of the door at Capen. This entire thing was a waste of time that acomplished nothing. Smokers, sleep easily nothing has changed!

Posted by Demire Coffin-Williams, Non-Smoking student who wants smokers to have rights too!, 01/28/10

Sara Saldi says:

Smoking is not a right. Smoking is an addiction--I know, I used to smoke.

It is also impossible to control one's second-hand smoke unless you stay in your house with your doors and windows closed.

This rule is not discriminatory. You can be hired and promoted if you're a smoker. However, in the interests of health, you won't be able to smoke on campus if you want to study or work here.

I'm proud that UB has made this decision and I heartily support it.

Posted by Sara Saldi, Senior Editor, 09/01/09

Christine Slocum says:

Frankly, I'm thrilled. I do not believe that smokers should be a class of people entitled to protection, particularly if the habit in question is as proven to cause cancer. It seems to me that smoking should be in a class of behaviors with reckless driving - while it primarily risks the driver's safety, it does put other's safety at risk. It takes longer for cigarettes to harm others, but that doesn't make it better. For many people the university is an employer and as such employers can and do enforce rules about what is acceptable behavior on the clock and on it's property. The university should not be hindering the efforts of those who try to protect their health by abstaining from smoking. Especially since so few smokers follow the rules and stay away from the buildings' entrances.

Posted by Christine Slocum, Graduate Student, 09/01/09

Gary Giovino says:

The comments by the anonymous student that were posted by Lyubov Yelinson about the report of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) need correcting. The EPA concluded in 1993 that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS; also known as secondhand smoke and tobacco smoke pollution) was a Group “A” (known human) carcinogen. The EPA was not the first major group to come to that conclusion. In 1986 the US Surgeon General and the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences both concluded that ETS causes lung cancer and other diseases in nonsmoking adults and children. The EPA report was challenged in court by Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, and other related groups. In 1998 the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina ruled that the EPA’s methods were flawed. In 2002, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the earlier finding on procedural grounds. The tobacco industry did not appeal further and the US Supreme Court has never heard the case. In 1998, the National Toxicology Program’s 9th Report on Carcinogens listed ETS among the known carcinogens and noted that the EPA “carefully summarized and evaluated” the individual studies.

Of course, the EPA report is now more than 16 years old. Based on far more available research, the 2006 report of the Surgeon General concluded that “Secondhand smoke causes premature death and disease in children and in adults who do not smoke” and that “The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.” In addition to the EPA, National Toxicology Program, and US Surgeon General, the following major medical and scientific organizations accept that ETS harms human health in serious ways: the World Health Organization, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US National Cancer Institute, California EPA, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and United Kingdom Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health.

Regarding the student’s use of his Master’s degree from Roswell Park Cancer Institute (RPCI) to claim credibility, I received my PhD from the RPCI Graduate Division in 1987, serving on faculty there from 1999-2006. Furthermore, Drs. Andrew Hyland, Mark Travers and K. Michael Cummings of the RPCI Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences are internationally-recognized experts on ETS and they all would strongly disagree with the student’s position. There are more than 4,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke pollution, about 250 of which cause cancer or are toxic in other ways. If you smell tobacco smoke you are breathing cancer-causing and toxic chemicals, many of which are regulated at toxic waste dumps.

I trust and hope the student will use this as a learning experience and in the future make scientific pronouncements that are consistent with the facts.

Posted by Gary Giovino, Professor and Chair, Department of Health Behavior, School of Public Health and Health Professions, 08/24/09

Kyle Smith says:

I love how nicotine addicts really convince themselves that their smoking on campus does not effect anyone else. Capen Hall, Norton Hall, Student Union/Starbucks, CFA, -- all of these places I have inhaled second hand smoke. Yes, I know some of you are responsible and don't smoke next to the door, but come winter time, i'm sure you don't go far. Non-smokers, in fact, should be able to sue the university if this policy is not appropriately enforced. i.e. heavy fines, arrests, etc..

Posted by Kyle Smith , Student , 08/19/09

Demire Coffin-Williams says:

This is REALLY not fair. Smoking is a personal choice and as long as smokers can remain respectful with their habits they should be allowed to smoke on campus. After all the eat, sleep, and live here just as we do. Smokers pay their tuition just like the rest of us, this policy is a direct violation of their rights. This should not have been allowed, and should not have been enacted. How much money will be spent on signage, and on removing cigarette receptacle's? Money that could be better spent on something else? I am not a smoker but i AM someone who thinks this is absolutely ridiculous!

Posted by Demire Coffin-Williams, Undergraduate, 08/19/09

kevin leatherbarrow says:

This is discrimination plan and simple… it does not matter if you are a smoker or not, your rights as an American are being taken away, because places like UB do not support free choice. I am a smoker, I smoke with others in mind and move away from doors, what is next junk food band and if your over weight you will not be allowed on campus because you set a bad example to others??? As an UB Alumni and a grad-student now I have watched my/your tuitions rise, why doesn’t UB build smoking huts? There cheap? Tell you what, remove all junk food dispensers from inside buildings and from any other place on campus, because it makes me feel bad watching people eat fattening non-healthy foods and promotes fatness, heart problems, self esteem issues, depression, high blood pressure, etc… Shame on UB…

Posted by kevin leatherbarrow, BS, 08/18/09

Desire Link says:

I think it will be very nice to not have cigarette smoke blown into my face when walking to my next class. I know that for myself, being around smokers/ second hand smoke has slightly more serious consequences since I am an asthmatic, and smoke is one of my triggers.

Yes, smokers say it is a personal choice to smoke. It is also a personal choice not to smoke. Explain how it is fair to forcibly expose people something that is so detrimental to everyone's health? Yes, smokers knowingly make the choice to hurt their body, and us non-smokers choose not to expose ourselves to harmful chemicals.

In all reality, who is it really going to physically hurt to have clean air for once?

Posted by Desire Link, Smokers think that their needs come before the needs of non-smokers., 08/18/09

Kristin Mary says:

I think creating a "smoke free" campus at UB is absolutely rediculous considering it is a personal choice to smoke. I am a smoker and i would like to have a ciggarette after my class while im on my way to my next class... this rule isn't going to make me quit smoking its just going to make me want to find another school to go to after my freshman year.

Posted by Kristin Mary, student, 08/18/09

alison culver says:

i am a new student and i smoke. this is not fair knowing that i have to leave campus in order to smoke. those who dont smoke dont know what it is like to have to leave in order to smoke. they dont understand the stress that comes with it! why would i quit smoking because the university is smoke free? i might as well quit school because i would be set up for failure! i will be smoking! what are they going to do write me a citation? please!

Posted by alison culver, smoke free is for communists , 08/18/09

Vanessa Paniccia says:

I'm so glad that UB is doing this. First, whenever I come into or out of movie theaters, malls and restaurant, I have to walk through a disgusting cloud of smoke. I don't like having to walk through that smoke mess when I'm going into building for my education. Second, this is so not discrimination. It's a choice to smoke, and it's not like you'd die if you can't smoke until you get off campus (or to the parking lot). I can't walk around drinking from a flask on campus either, and that would be far less likely to cause any discomfort to any one else. And it's certainly not as if UB is asking you to change the color of your skin or practice another religion. They are just asking you to stop being a jerk by blowing smoke around campus. Third, if you are worried about your safety over smoking late at night in a parking lot, either go smoke with your friends, or wait until you get to your car to light up. Fourth, UB is doing you a huge favor. Studies show that smokers are far more likely to live paycheck to paycheck and have high debt because those who smoke lack impulse control. This can be a lesson in self control that will surely help you when you are trying to pay back your student loans, and buy a house. Lastly, even if you still think this is discrimination, please please curb your self-entitlement and realize that there are far worse injustices and that you probably have it pretty damn good.

Posted by Vanessa Paniccia, DLIS Student, 08/17/09

Brian Borncamp says:

Smoking is a major threat to the health of others. If that's the reason for the proposed ban, then why isn't UB banning other harmful activities? Activities like driving a car on campus or large diesel busses, making use of electricity garnered from power plants, or buying food from factory farms. This proposed ban on smoking is wildly inconsistent within any sort of political or ethical realm. It's nothing more than a cheesy publicity stunt.

Posted by Brian Borncamp, Brian Borncamp, 08/16/09

Jesse McGirr says:

This affront to smokers rights is deplorable. Most smoke-free private buildings in the US allow smokers an area, outside, away from doors where they can smoke. It bothers no one, and smokers get to partake of a quite legal activity, one which they choose to do. What truly bothers me is that this program touts being for the smoker's well being; offering smokers quitting help, free nicotine gum, etc. If the University really cared about the health of the student/faculty/staff body, they would make it possible to get a healthy meal anywhere on campus. Food quality around North campus is quite poor, with the majority of "restaurants" being fast food. "Meals" in the residence halls are of an even poorer quality, and offer less nutritional value. The consequences of poor nutrition are much more harmful than walking past a smoker outside and catching a wiff of smoke. In all likelihood, walking around in one of the campus parking lots, breathing in the exhaust in the air while multiple cars are coming and going, is more harmful than walking past the occasional smoker.

The "Transition" period is just as big a load of scheisse as the UBreathe Free program as a whole. I guess the big wigs decided its ok to "infect" the "clean" with second hand smoke when you are 300 ft away from a building. I mean at that distance from the safe haven of a campus bulding, they're lucky to be alive, right? A year of limited rights that will flow right into another year of even heavier restrictions is no transition. It is an attempt to quell the outrage of the people who keep the University gears churning.

When I decided to come to UB, I expected a certain level of acceptance and respect from the University. The people who work and dedicate their lives to the betterment of the University and its students deserve to be shown the same level of respect. This is certainly no way to show it.

I, personally, will most certainly continue to smoke on campus. I have never been intrusive with my habits, and I have no intent to harm anyone by smoking. I challenge the University to try to impose this unwarranted crusade against people's rights. You will not win, you can never succeed. There are too many of us, and too few of you.

YOU WILL FAIL.

Posted by Jesse McGirr, High Chancellor of Tobacco, 08/16/09

Matthew Coppola - New UB Dad says:

To regulate a human's rights this way violates my choice as a law abiding and tax paying (thats also tax on cigarettes paying) rights....I understand providing a healthy and smoke CONTAINED environment, especially where our children are concerned, but if you want to regulate smoking, remember when we pay for cigarettes we are heavily taxed on top of the rising prices.....sounds a bit hypocritical??????

Posted by Matthew Coppola - New UB Dad, UNFAIR, 08/16/09

James Sullivan says:

So what happens when even MORE people end up getting mugged in the parking lots at night because of this? How big of a settlement do you think the first poor girl who gets raped will receive from the school when she blames this stupid new discriminatory rule that sent her out into the darkness alone just for a smoke? South campus is plagued by violent crimes every year, and this will just increase those number and possibly invite the same activity to north campus.

Congratulations on being so 'progressive' UB. There's a lot of fat people around too, how about you ban vending machines while you're at it?

Posted by James Sullivan, Non Smoking Student - BY CHOICE, 08/16/09

Ellen Berrey says:

This is terrific news. I really agree with the previous post about the uproar against the ban against smoking in NYC (and Chicago and many other major cities). At first, people made a big fuss, and then lots of people found that it was not a big deal and far more pleasant to be in a smoke-free environment.

My office is on the fourth floor above an area that people now use as an outdoors smoking section (right near the building doors, no less). Smokers may think they are not bothering anyone, but I can smell it when my windows are open. The smoke drifts up and still smells -- and, as I understand it, is still toxic-- that high up. Thank you, UB.

Posted by Ellen Berrey, Professor, 08/16/09

Dijana Sa says:

This type of “policy” could be easily called “discrimination” against smokers. It makes me angry, and I bet there will be many students coming into the class late, during the night smokers will walk to the parking lot to have a cigarette and that will be a perfect time for a reaper and robber to do this thing, etc, did this stupid “law” think about any consequences smoke-free campuses will have. I hope nothing bad like this happens to anyone but let us see. I totally disagree with this policy, it is 100 % ridiculous. And i hope someone takes these comments we make into the consideration

Posted by Dijana Sa, Discrimination, 08/15/09

matthew gillaspy says:

I'm a 26 year old adult student. I'm paying thousands of dollars a semester to attend this university. Telling me that i cant smoke on campus is insulting. Did anyone even consider the faculty and staff who work here? why should researchers who come to this university from all over the country be subject to such insulting violations of their liberties? In the recent student body elections I personally consulted both parties and was assured unconditionally by the winning group that they were opposed to this ban. This decision is obviously being made without concern for anyones opinion. I will continue to smoke outside in places where it will not bother others.

Posted by matthew gillaspy, student, 08/15/09

Suraj Balchand says:

I have just reached Buffalo, and joining UB this fall'09. This is really good news. I hate smoking and could never come to terms with the reason provided for smoking something that is so damaging to the smoker and the people around him/her.

Bravo UB! Way to go!

Posted by Suraj Balchand, Good one! , 08/15/09

Pam Rose says:

I applaud this policy as well, and not just because I hate the smoke. Perhaps those who object have forgotten that we all shoulder the extra burden of illness that such habits can cause. Here we are in the middle of a health care reform crisis, with costs skyrocketing and no solution in sight. Any program that will motivate a smoker to quit is a move in the right direction.

When NYS banned smoking in bars, there was an uproar. Bar owners claimed they would all go out of business, and of course that did not happen for the most part. Instead bars are now much more pleasant places.

Seems to me the policy was announced well beforehand, was enacted with the idea that initially, at least, it would be an honor system, and giving the campus a year to adjust is certainly reasonable.

Health care begins with each individual. Before you complain about rights, take responsibility. Ask not what your physician can do for you, but what you can do for your health.

Posted by Pam Rose, HSL, 08/13/09

Pat Cipollone says:

This idea of deciding what is good and what is bad for students, then baning what a select few decide is bad, is ludicrous. We all know the health hazards, but it is YOUR OWN choice. This rule is quite a joke and will not be followed; bottom line.

Posted by Pat Cipollone, Student, 08/13/09

Robert Wurstner says:

I would really like to see then CVS on north campus not permitting the sale of cigarettes then... Then maybe this would promote the use of chewing tobacco...

I think this is a horrible idea anyways. Not only smokers have to pay more taxes on cigarettes in the store when they know the health risk. But they cannot even smoke it while attending college where it is very often stressful pulling over-nighters ect. I feel like if someone would really want a cigarette they would have one. Unless there is more security on campus no one is really going to follow this. It is great to promote anti-smoking but everyone has a right to chose what they want to do. They say eating at a fast food place a few times a week is just as bad as smoking. But we will never see any food place on campus being shut down due to the health risks. As individuals we should all asset our own lives and chose what we want to do.

That would be quite a sight to see an anti-smoking protest...

Posted by Robert Wurstner, student, 08/13/09

Irene Yu says:

I'm a non-smoker and I absolute despise cigarettes. But I find this policy to be a little ridiculous. I think it's just going to create a lot of anger and frustration with students and faculty members that do smoke. And it really is just telling people what to do and what not to do. It's micro-managing and I don't see this going down smoothly.

However, perhaps Janine has a point. if the frustration could stop some people from smoking, why not? At this point, all I can do is wait and see what happens.

Posted by Irene Yu, AASU treasurer, 08/12/09

Lyubov Yelinson says:

Part 2: The simple fact of the matter is that second-hand smoke has never been proven in any study to cause cancer. I should know, I hold a Master’s degree from Roswell Park. The craze started in the 1980’s because a flawed study done by the EPA had an agenda to ban smoking. The US Supreme court ruled that the study was flawed, cherry-picked data, and it’s conclusions were not based on the data which was found to be insignificant. Their own data showed that people who are exposed to second-hand smoke on a daily basis as part of their job (such as a bar tender) have a 10 in one million chance of developing lung cancer. A person not exposed to second-hand smoke had a 12 in one million chance of developing cancer. This is not statistically significant. Even if it were bad for you, people only smoke OUTSIDE at UB. If you don’t like smoking, fine… DON’T SMOKE! However, I understand some people are bothered by the smell. Perhaps they could confine smokers to several spots on campus (which is still segregation and discrimination). These spots would have to be close together so that people could get to them with minimal amount of time and effort (time it takes in between classes), otherwise they will not work. Anyone for this policy should be ashamed of themselves. I encourage people to do whatever makes you happy. To the fat person, if chocolate cake makes you happy, you go right ahead and eat chocolate cake. If you like other men, then that’s how you were built. Finally, UB is a public, state-funded school and therefore must abide by the laws of the land. There is no law against smoking outside in New York state nor in the United States, and therefore the school cannot violate anyone’s civil right to smoke and to do so would open up a case for a lawsuit. A private school could get away with this, but not a public nor a state school. Sorry for the lateness of my comment, but I had to argue with the editor to let me post as anonymous.

Posted by Lyubov Yelinson, ESL Lecturer, 08/12/09

Lyubov Yelinson says:

This comment seems to be too long, so I have to post it in 2 parts. It was passed along by a graduate student who wishes to be anonymous because of fear of persecution at the department where they are applying. I plead with the editor to let me take full responsibility for this comment and post it. Part 1: This policy is absurd and ridiculous. The “smoking witch hunt” must be stopped. This policy is discriminatory, oppressive, and social profiling. The United States makes rules and laws based on how the average logical and reasonable person would behave. The second commented, Janine, I understand your anger at cigarettes. What happened to your parents is a travesty. I wish I could take it back. However, they did know the risks and they themselves chose to begin and continue smoking. I understand why you feel strongly about this but you should try not to impose your beliefs onto others. As for Teresa, your comments have no excuse. They are ridiculous. Who are you to tell me how I should live my life? Do you know who else liked social profiling? The Nazi’s, the KKK, white supremacists. Maybe you’re right, lets just give up on progress. Maybe we should expel all vegetarians from the school because that’s not a healthy diet. How about fat people, let’s force them to lose weight… it’ll be good for them. Take away all fatty foods from the cafeteria, make them park far away from the buildings so they get exercise, and put them in a different part of campus so we don’t have to see them. After all, fat people could lose weight if they really wanted to. How about gays, they might spread disease, we shouldn’t tolerate that. They could not date people of the same sex anymore if they really wanted to. What’s next… the blacks… Asians… let’s just go back to segregation. Where should we stop? While we’re at it, let’s get rid of ugly chics. No one wants to look at ugly chics, right? Let’s at least make them get plastic surgery. Let’s get rid of tall people, they make people feel small. How about people that shave their head… naw, they might be white supremacists. But those tattooed people, they could have caught something when they were being inked. Of course that is unless they were inked with a swastika; then they’d be safe. In case you can’t tell… I’m being sarcastic. I just thought I would make that clear. So Teresa, if after reading this you think “gee, I never thought of it that way” then welcome back to the world of logic and reason… we missed you. If on the other hand you are still for oppression, intolerance, and discrimination and you are anti-American and against the Constitution… then I’ll give you three guesses where you can go shove your self-righteous attitude. Stay out of my life and I’ll stay out of yours. You shouldn’t want to associate yourself with the “sub-human” smokers anyway. Have you ever heard, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. How about judge not lest yee be judged. Kevin, I understand where you’re coming from, it’s a descent point… but if it ever comes down to wearing masks, smoking will be banned across the country. Also, this isn’t a matter of diversity, that’s the wrong word. It’s a matter of discrimination. Mark, excellent points (except for the diversity part). I hadn’t even thought about the safety aspect until reading your comments.

Posted by Lyubov Yelinson, ESL Lecturer, 08/12/09

Morenia Thomas says:

Many in favor of this policy have legitimate points: the smoke cloud at Capen and cigarettes butts everywhere are my concerns as well. But passing by a smoker is not more dangerous than inhaling the fumes of a truck that passes by. Many of you eat barbecued food, and this is really dangerous as well. People are exaggerating the "dangers" of the second-hand smoke you can inhale by passing by a smoker.

This policy is undemocratic. I feel that I am living in a dictatorial country. I agree with the ban of smoking around the campus, but to leave certain designated areas for smoking. Not in the middle of the parking lot, that can represent a risk for student or staff safety.

And who is going to enforce this ban? What is the fine or punishment???

Really disappointed with UB!!!!!!

Posted by Morenia Thomas, Disappointment with UB, 08/12/09

Eric Benfey says:

The merits and flaws of this policy are relatively apparent to whoever observes this policy. Either aspect can carry more or less weight, dependent on how the observer values them.

Having said that, I am in general opposition to this policy, though my opposition does not lie directly within 'smoker' or 'non-smoker' rights. Rather, I am more concerned in the intangible aspect of this policy, the political side. I feel like the intent of the policy is largely to set UB apart from other schools by embracing a growing anti-smoking trend. Whether or not it is a purely political motivation (I feel that it isn't entirely, since nothing is entirely absolute), I feel as though a large factor for this aggressive attack on smoking does lie within the battlefield of University politics.

Where, I enjoy the health benefits afforded by a smoking ban, I feel like efforts could be better spent on a more proactive approach towards embracing smokers, rather than alienating them. I cannot say beyond a shadow of a doubt that this would better accomplish UB's goals towards smokers, however, I feel like it is a much more responsible approach.

At the heart of this, the society should make the call on this. Social issues should be left up to the culture of the people that it affects, not a select administration. Thomas Jefferson may have feared the tyranny of the majority, but it is within the rights of a majority to determine what is socially acceptable.

Posted by Eric Benfey, Student, 08/12/09

Aaron Festinger says:

This policy clearly demonstrates that despite the jubilation and appearance of victory we have actually lost the cold war. The USSR is gone, but the ideology that spawned it lives on here in the USA. Smoking has been declared 'un-American'. Everyone gets an equal say, but some ( those writing the new doctrine ) get a more equal say than others. I would suggest that those in favor of freedom both on campus and off should speak up immediately, whether the new policy affects them or not. Perhaps (like myself) you are unaffected by the smoking policy; smoking rarely or not at all. Nevertheless it would be a mistake to sit by while the rights of others are trampled. They are coming for us next, and by then it will be too late.

Posted by Aaron Festinger, Slow Death of Liberty, 08/12/09

Susan Carter says:

I like the new policy! I hate going into classroom buildings and having smoke hovering around the doors or blown into my face. This policy is overdue. I feel bad for the smokers who can't quit but I have no wish to share this addiction via second-hand smoke.

I know there will be lots of people going out to the parking lots to smoke for the next year. I'd like to see the practice of throwing the cigarette butts on the ground banned as well. I hope provisions will be made for the safe disposal of the butts. Too many times I've seen piles of butts out in the parking lot where someone has emptied a full ashtray from a car onto the ground.

Posted by Susan Carter, Thank you!, 08/11/09

April M says:

Does this mean that I will now be able to go in and out of the health services building without walking next to the health services employee standing on the steps puffing out a noxious cloud? I sure hope so.

Posted by April M, Student, 08/11/09

Thomas Burkman says:

I attended a college decades ago which had a total nico-ban policy. I opposed the ban then, and I oppose it now. I'm a non-smoker, and dislike the smell. But the practice is legal, and some people in our university community HAVE to smoke. A total ban is social activism gone amuck.

Posted by Thomas Burkman, Research Professor of Asian Studies, 08/10/09

Sean D Baker says:

I'm not a smoker, and this policy still angers me. It is not the right of the school to dictate the behaviors of students. If you dont wish to breathe smoke outside, walk to class indoors, thats what the spine is for. Smoke disperses, its avoidable, deal with it. I don't mean to sound insensitive to thos ewho dont like it but we live in a free society, how is it your right to inmpose your beliefds on others. It's rediculous what the school is asking smokers to do. My dad and stepmom and have been trying to quit; I know second-hand how difficult it is. This policy cannot be enforced no matter how my these damn school bureaucrats try and force it down peoples' throats.

Posted by Sean D Baker, SoM Student, 08/10/09

Carlos Darby says:

To the people complaining about the new policy, have you ever heard of second-hand smoke. You don't see me shoving cheese fries or greasy pizza slices down your mouth and slowly send you to your death with them. Have respect for the people around you, 100 feet is not too far, take about 30 steps away from any building and smoke all the cancer sticks your body can handle!

Posted by Carlos Darby, Student, 08/10/09

Lyubov Yelinson says:

First of all, it seems that the nonsmokers applauding this ridiculous policy cannot comprehend that banning smoking is not going to encourage or force the smokers to quit smoking. Quitting is a personal choice and cannot be controlled by any authority. Smoking also is an addiction, and it is an insurmountable task to try quitting. However, it is an addiction that is still legal in our society; therefore, it shouldn't be anybody else's business but the smokers' own right to pollute and destroy their own body. Why not punish the junk food abusers and ban all the unhealthy food on campus too? That actually makes a lot more sense.

Secondly, the policy itself is completely not thought out. What is the punishment for being caught smoking on campus? There is no mention of any sanctions whatsoever. Will I get reprimanded by a passerby, warned by the UB Police, or fined? As a smoker I have a right to know the consequences of my horrible and despicable act. Are there going to be signs posted banning smoking near buildings, or in green areas, or 100ft markers announcing the freedom to smoke? As of August 1, 2009, I have seen no change AT ALL on campus, which would indicate that the policy is indeed in effect. Just give us smokers a warning when you will start a raid. I don't want to miss teaching my class because of being detained at a police station.

Overall, this situation is beyond ridiculous and risking to become a farce. Having been born and having lived in a police state for 18 years of my life (USSR), I have welcomed America as my second home and a country of FREEDOM. Freedom of choice, freedom of religion, freedom of expression. This action undertaken by the UB administration is against what America stands for - freedom. I am surprised and dismayed at the lack of care from anyone who this policy will affect, and ashamed to admit from myself too. But it's not the lack of care from my side as it is more of a fear. Can one person challenge the system and not risk losing a job? I am afraid to take it upon myself to protest this unfairness, and also afraid of just losing my voice in the midst of all unconcern and disregard. I hope my voice will be heard.

Please feel free to contact me at yelinson@buffalo.edu

Posted by Lyubov Yelinson, ESL Lecturer, 08/10/09

Ashlee Dawson says:

At first I thought this idea was poorly thought out because UB started this smoke free process during the school semester. I found that to be unfair to the students who have already chosen to attend UB for the year, and were intially given the right to smoke on campus. But, with the revision of the plan to start in 2010 gives students who don't agree with this policy to find an alternative. During that year, smoking students will have the opportunity to transfer to another college if they find it out of the question to just follow the rules or worse yet, quit smoking altogether. After all, no one is twisting your arm, forcing you to attend UB right?

Posted by Ashlee Dawson, Student, 08/10/09

Mark Boonshoft says:

Not only does this policy undermine diversity as a previous commenter mentioned but it goes a long way to prove the degree to which the UB administration does not take all factors into consideration when making a decision. First and foremost the university did very little to try and accommodate both smokers and nonsmokers on this campus. As a student I heard constant complaints from my peers about this issue and generally speaking the complaints were either that they did not like walking out of academic buildings, specifically Capen, into a cloud of smoke and they also thought the large amount of cigarette butts seen on campus was unsightly. UB did not do anything to ameliorate this situation until they took this brash and poorly thought out action. Current UB policy limits how close one can smoke to a doorway, however there are no ash trays to be found on campus, this leaves a smoker with two choices, smoke in front of a building illegally and have an ash tray, or smoke in the middle of the road and leave the butt there. At no point in my three years at UB have I ever seen an ash tray in the middle of a walkway, far from a building. This simple fix would have done a lot to alleviate the complaints of many students on campus as they would have had very little trouble waking away from smokers and there would be no unsightly cigarette butts littering the campus. It seems that this simple, conciliatory approach was just too level headed and sensical for UB administration. This brings me to a more abstract and hypothetical point, that is of safety. In the next year students will have to walk into parking lots in order to smoke. Members of the UB Faculty and staff like the previous poster Teresa Piccirillo do not see that this ban goes beyond the hours of 9-5 and effects STUDENTS, not all of whom have cars. Students living in the residence halls who will undoubtedly be taking their walks to the parking lots for a cigarette at late hours and probably on their own somewhat frequently (I for one would not be too inclined to walk 100 feet into a parking lot in the dead of Buffalo winter with a friend so he/she could have a cigarette). This would created an unnecessary safety risk for students who chose to smoke. This problem will only be exacerbated in a year when the ban is campus wide. Dorm students will have to leave campus whether by car (does UB Green care to comment on this?) or on foot. So a student living in the dorms in the 2010-11 academic year will either have to drive a car off campus in order to smoke a cigarette, or worse have to walk potentially at night and potentially unsafely to a spot off campus to smoke a cigarette. This will only be made worse by the current proposal by a green initiative on campus that would prohibit Freshman from having cars. That would ensure that every Freshman smoker would need to walk off campus in potentially dangerous areas during potentially dangerous times of day for a cigarette. Clearly very little thought was put into this plan and no person involved cared to see beyond their own sanctimonious motives and evaluate the actual impact this would have on STUDENTS WHO HAVE TO LIVE ON CAMPUS. I can only hope the UB Administration will get off their high horse and learn what it means to compromise with those whose values differ from their own and come up with a rational solution before any ill effects of this proposal are felt and before any student gets hurt while smoking a cigarette in an entirely out of the way place.

Posted by Mark Boonshoft, Student, 08/10/09

K-Dizzle (Kevin Randolph) says:

What does this policy actually say about DIVERSITY? If society is currently undergoing changes to accept people for who they are, this policy clearly isn't adapting to such changes. Diveristy is clearly defined and UNDERSTOOD beyond RACE. And if second hand smoke is such a threat to others, what is the big deal about wearing a mask over your face? As many did for the Swine Flu. But apparently, it is something that people don't want to DO. The dangers in cigarrette smoking can affect lives just as well in the life of a NON SMOKER. And if extending another year's time frame; thus limiting smoking in parking lots for the community to adjust; the same thing can be done in the event of those who back this policy by wearing a mask to complete such a TASK!

Our lives can and WILL end just as quick as Flight 3407, 447, and just recently the Hudson River incident from this past weekend. It doesn't make any sense in the effort people will make to live a life that isn't promised in a specific time span, UNDERSTAND?

Posted by K-Dizzle (Kevin Randolph), STUDENT, 08/10/09

Janine Tramont says:

I applaud this policy. Both of my parents were smokers for many years and both were diagnosed with cancers within a month of each other directly related to those attributed to smokers; lung and bladder cancer. My mother did not survive and my father had his bladder removed as a result. If this new policy can help to spur even one person to quit smoking then it is worth it! As you may have possibly saved someone from a world full of hurt and also sparred a family from losing a loved one prematurely. Thank you UB!!

Posted by Janine Tramont, Business Development, Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, 08/10/09

Teresa Piccirillo says:

This is an excellent idea and a smooth transitioning period. One year is a gracious amount of time for our colleagues to try to kick the habit. It is not easy, but it is good for your health and lifestyle.

If you don't want to quit, there are plenty of off campus places close by where you can drive to have your cigarette break. Bravo UB.

Posted by Teresa Piccirillo, Special Projects Coordinator, 08/10/09