blogs: Rick Redding 

Tomorrow could be a big day in the history of smoking. It's the Great American Smokeout, a national movement pushed by the American Heart Association to get you to quit, at least for a day. Around here, U of L officials figured it would be a good day to launch its phaseout of smoking on campus. There will be 18 spots on campus where smoking is allowed, and you can't light up within 50 feet of a building entrance. The same thing's happening at UK and, according to U of L, 300 other campuses across the country. Still, it's surprising to learn that one in four U of L students has the habit. The school is launching a website devoted to the topic this afternoon, and is providing all kinds of assistance for quitting. It ought to just put up a sign for students, saying "Welcome to the Real World" where smoking is not accepted in any workplace. This comes on the heels of a bold step taken last month by Norton HealthCare, when it announced that employees could no longer come to work smelling like smoke, and that they can't smoke in their cars while on campus. So it's come to the point where smoking in public has become the exception. We've been through the fight over smoking in bars and restaurants, and the next frontier seems to be bans that extend to areas outside but still on company property. I wondered about our city's other big public education organization, Jefferson County Public Schools. Turns out there is no system-wide ban on campuses, but the JCPS board is considering a change, according to spokesperson Lauren Roberts. As it stands, the policy still allows supervisors to designate smoking areas for staff. Students aren't allowed to use tobacco products at any time. From JCPS: use of tobacco products by staff members is prohibited in any building owned or operated by board or any bd vehicle. Staff members may be permitted to use tobacco products on grounds only in outside area established by supervisor. At U of L, enforcement is supposed to start with telling smokers politely to put the butt out, building to the point where chronic violators will be "disciplined" by supervisors. This isn't the end, of course, of smoking-related policies. Where I teach a public speaking class, Brown Mackie College, still allows students to puff away on breaks. But even that's likely to change, someday.

ADD A COMMENT

	♥jaybeeM   wed nov 18 2009 at 3:01 pm         ·  YAY!! Talk about exciting. I don't give a crap about smoker's rights... it wouldn't matter if a) it didn't smell like shit.. or chemicals.. or both. b) it didn't effect other people's health and c) it's just plain gross. If you wanna fight for rights, for for rights worth having. Smoker's rights is a pile of crap!
	TwistedSister   wed nov 18 2009 at 4:09 pm         ·  If they are going to start regulating the way people smell, I hope they go after that woman who douses herself in cheap hooker perfume three times a day and the guy who only bathes once a month.
	J. Stoneshifter   wed nov 18 2009 at 4:19 pm         ·  Abuse of power. Jaimes, what if they start banning your hair products to save the ozone? Or your lipstick for using animal parts? To me, thats gross, and no ones rights are a pile of crap, it's people like you that make it hard to wait for darwins theory to do its job.
	ntcpet   wed nov 18 2009 at 10:09 pm         ·  but when we all quit smoking, who will be paying all those high taxes we pay??? I thought it was because the government was broke and trying to figure out where to come up with extra money..here's an idea raise a loaf of bread to 5.00. I will be laughing at you crying about those 5.00 a gal gas prices..The jokes on all the non-smokers..you just don't know it yet..so I will wear my patch at work and go home and smoke my cigarette and I won't be visiting your restaurants spending my money..
	~*~SoftNSexy~*~   wed nov 18 2009 at 10:32 pm         ·  Nicely put Ntcpet. No we don't have an actualy "right to smoke" but we do have the right to the pursuit of happiness. Smoking makes me very happy.....it also keeps me from getting very nasty with people who presume to judge me or what I choose to do. People who think they have the "right". Listen, I don't smoke around kids, or people that cant tolerate it. However, I don't see why I can't enjoy a cigarette and take a moment for myself (with or without my friends who smoke)when I'm OUTSIDE. As long as Im not standing close to a door where people are continuously going in/out I don't see the problem. Also Miss Jaimes, if you think my habits are gross you may want to think about what you're putting onto your face. You do realise that they use all kinds of animals parts in those...correct?
	L0k@l T3rr0r1$t   wed nov 18 2009 at 10:45 pm         ·  hahaha, you know there are things with smoking that the government doesnt want you to know, such as how they came up with the whole thing about second hand smoke causing cancer in others, smoking doesnt affect anyone elses health except for the smoker. so the gov. needs to get their facts straight and quit taking their shit out on smokers who arent hurting anyone but themselves
	conservativeguy   wed nov 18 2009 at 11:39 pm         ·  Bragi: You're right! Why don't we just get rid of all "rights" all together? --- While this could be claimed to be "pursuit of happiness", I believe it rests more with "liberty": an idea we have no concept of today. I am a non-smoker (and in fact have asthma and am allergic to smoke) and I hate the smell of smoke and it drives me crazy when people close to me smoke. However, when I see some hill billy or hot girl smoking, it doesn't affect me one bit. They can do whatever they want to their bodies. It isn't my business what they do! I believe that it is perfectly fine for Norton to ban tobacco use at and directly before work because they are a private business. If they wanted doctors and nurses puffing away in the delivery room, great for them-I'll just be sure to choose a different hospital. That is how the free market works, well, should work anyway. I view UofL a little differently though. They are not a private university and operate with our tax dollars. IU Southeast, my school, has already banned smoking and fine people who are caught breaking the rule (people still break it occasionally though). As redblip said, what is the next enemy of the state? Will UofL ban non-"eco-friendly" cars?? Smoking may cause an annoyance from the smell of smoke, so why not ban cell phones from campus because of the annoyance associated with them? Stand up for personal liberty before there are no liberties left! "First they came for the cigarette
	ntcpet   thu nov 19 2009 at 12:02 am         ·  well on the way home I was thinking obesity is their new issue..so here is how it will go.. no coffee at work.. caffeine is bad for you..and if you do drink it no sugar or cream..no soda.. no fried foods.. no pizza... no fast food...no chocolate..only sugar free candy..you will have to start cooking healthy meals..no red meat..I think that leaves us to salads and water..You might want to buy some stock in those companies now..oh and NO ALCOHOL or WINE..
	GT Angel   sat nov 21 2009 at 11:28 am         ·  There's actually another problem that is coming from this whole mess besides the battle between the smoker and nonsmoker. I work at a medical center that has banned smoking on the premises and since the medical campus ban we've seen a rise in patients and family being caught smoking in rooms and stairwells. This adds a fire hazard to the hospital when patients try to hide their cigarette beneath their sheets when the nurses come in. Even as a smoker myself I think the idea was good, but the actual plan put into place is flawed. No amount of fines are going to convince a stressed out family member to not try to find a spot to sneak a cigarette, and unfortunately their hiding spots sometimes pose more risk than the habit itself. Granted I don't have the perfect solution to the problem but the implementation does need some revamping.
	Song   sat nov 21 2009 at 5:22 pm         ·  as the great jim rome would say: personal appearances are NOT show fodder, so there is no reason to bring up anyone's personal appearance. and for the ones who say "what's next is..." get a life and quit trying to get us all to slip down the slippery slope fallacy with you!
	♥jaybeeM   sun nov 22 2009 at 8:34 pm         ·  Bah. I don't give a crap about smoker's rights still. I don't care what you put in your body. Don't give a damn what you do in your spare time, in your car, whatever. It does peeve me when people flick their cigarettes out the window and it hits my car, but that's just because I'm weird and really loathe cigarette smoke. Course, I'm allergic to it and it makes me sick. I don't bitch when I come over to your house and it smells like crap, and I don't bitch when my clothes/hair/everything else smells like smoke when I leave. It's not about stripping your rights. Cigarettes hands down affect people other than those smoking them. I go to the tanning bed sometimes and am asking for trouble with my health, but not hurting the person in front of me in line by doing so. Your cigarette smoke, however, in the same line, is hurting the hell out of my throat, nose, and ears. And it stinks. And most of the time, so do you. It just seems smart to have designed spots for stuff like that. If I know where the smoker spots are, I know not to go near them. You still get to puff away, and my ears can continue not hurting. How is that bad? So all the "liberty" we're lacking ISN'T lacking in this instance. If you're going to pull that card, at least use it in something worth fighting for...