Smoking kills, and cost tax dollars to attempt to save smokers. Secondhand smoke is a toxic by-product of smoking tobacco which affects anyone who is exposed to it. Secondhand smoke is defined as the smoke which is exhaled by the smoker plus the smoke created by the smouldering of a lit cigarette. Secondhand smoke is full of toxins, and is dangerous to anyone who breathes it in. Otherwise known as environmental tobacco smoke(ETS). Children face a higher risk than adults of the negative effects of secondhand smoke, also known as ETS. Not only is a child’s body still developing physically, but their breathing rate is faster than that of adults. One of the toxic byproducts of cigarette smoke is hydrogen cyanide. Smokers inhale it with every puff they take. This same chemical was used as a genocidal agent during World War II. Third-hand smoke is the term used to describe the toxic gases and small particles that linger long after a cigarette is extinguished. Third-hand smoke is a serious health risk, especially for children. Researchers have discovered the presence of cancer-causing chemicals in the urine of babies who breathe in environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). All smoking should be immediately prohibited, outlawed, and smokers labeled criminals with intent to cause death and great bodily harm. There should be no tolerance for smokers.

That will require changes by Congress. Congress will not outlaw tobacco, because the lobbyists won’t let that happen. And we know that outlawing behaviors doesn’t change behavior. Look at the period of prohibition, where people openly flouted a law they felt was a restriction on their freedoms. The “war on drugs” has simply made them more appealing, and where we could be generating revenue from their sale, we are instead wasting money on futile enforcement efforts, and prison time for offenders.

We can’t outlaw everything that is bad for us; though your argument related to children is appropriate, extending that logic to smokers in restricted areas at UNM makes no sense. I face far worse atmospheric and evironmental pollution risks each day than from the second-hand smoke produced by a group standing outside and 20 feet from me.

The UNM logic breaks down completely when we look at chewing tobacco. There is no logic in banning this behavior on the grounds of impact to others, since there is none.

The original respondent is correct; UNM owes the smoking population clear signage showing where smoking is permitted.

UNM outlaws smoking and yet the SUB has a Sonic, Chik-Fil-Eh, and several other slop troughs. Soon we’ll be a campus of fat-assed non-smokers. Yay.

Yes, but all those “fat-assed nonsmokers” are not harming the skinny but otherwise healthy nonsmokers or kids. It never ceases to amaze me how people will automatically point out other unhealthy lifestyles as being similar to smoking and second hand smoke. The nearest lifestyle would be alcohol in that more accidents (killing nondrinkers and drinkers alike) are caused by drinking then anything else.
I agree that prohibition will not change anything, but knowledge and social pressures will change the way people live.

Gary,
Ever smelled an overfed, sweaty, lard ass? I’m opposed to second hand smoke as much as I am opposed to greasy, fast food fueled perspiration. I’d argue that the odor eminating from my morbidly obese classmate (who also farts) is as detrimental to my health as second hand smoke, although I do admit that, to my knowledge, there is no scientific evidence to back up my claim. Perhaps, as an MPH, you might shed some light onto this smelly subject.

Geeze, and no one is FORCING anyone to buy Chik/Sonic, etc. yet passive smoke is forcing me to smoke AGAINST MY WILL! Don’t you get the difference? I have the right be be wherever I am an NOT SMOKE! Simple. When I smoked I NEVER SMOKED AROUND ANYONE ELSE. EVER! Now that I choose not to smoke, I want to NOT smoke. It’s not too much to ask considering just how dangerous, damaging and deadly smoking is!

I thought we lived in the United States. I thought that as United States Citizens we were free. We are slowly become more of a non-democratic society because everytime we turn around we have someone telling us what we can or can-not do. I smoke. It is my choice to smoke. I have no problem with bieng told that I have to smoke outside, but I do have a problem with bieng told that I cannot smoke at all. It should be MY choice whether to smoke or not to smoke. If non-smokers don’t want to be around cigarette smoke, then don’t go near the smoking areas. Its that simple.

Smoking should have been outlawed decades ago. First of all is the horrible stench, trash, health costs and wasted time employers have to pay for. Pure vanity,not a choice. You students didnt’ start because you had to, but because you are KOOL.
Get a grip and get over it while you can. I watched my best friend in Tokyo die from lung cancer. Take a look and then tell me you are offended.

I do not see the problem with smoking at all. I do not smoke and when I find someone else smoking in front of me or near me, I simply walk away. I don’t understand why others cannot do the same. I understand how harmful smoking can be which is why I don’t do it. But I am not about to go up to someone and tell them that they cannot do it either when it’s in their own rights to smoke. Everyone is allowed to make their own choices (smoke or eat unhealthy food) when it comes to their own bodies that takes the consequences.
Also, to argue with Dr. Ide, the amount of children/babies on campus is slim. I do not see how arguing a point, even if it is very true, is really necessary when we are talking about the older population. I am not saying that smoking isn’t bad for kids, I am only saying that it isn’t necessary to argue a point like that unless we are talking about an elementary school.

I choose to remain slim and not eat fast food, yet I am constantly exposed to the body odors of those who choose to eat fast food. See Karen, this argument works if it’s really all about making healthy choices. But UNM really deosn’t care about that…they outlaw smoking because they can’t make any money off tobacco sales. They can (and do) make tons of money slinging the slop they call food in the SUB, even though it’s mostly unhealthy. See how that works?

I suppose the point here is that smokers aren’t refusing to comply with smoking only in designated areas, and therefor allowing non-smokers to avoid the second hand smoke we admittedly produce. The point is, we don’t know where they are, by fault of the university. I am more than willing to smoke in separate areas, and sharing my unhealthy habit and it’s health consequences with those who choose the same lifestyle, the university seems to be unwilling to assist us in this effort. If there were a labeled smoking area by Dane Smith Hall, I would smoke only there. However, I haven’t seen one, despite looking. I therefore smoke anywhere outside. If you are unhappy with the second-hand smoke you are subjected to, I suggest you support us in pushing the university to adhere to it’s own policies, so you might also know where the smoking areas are and therefore how to avoid us smokers.

Although the designated areas are not as well marked as they could be, that should be changing soon. Benches with spaces for signage are on order and will be installed as soon as they arrive. The specific locations are described at: http://www.unm.edu/smokefree/

First of all, if anyone really wants to be “healthy” around here, we’ve got to stop using oil. The very air you breath, whether its around smokers or not, is filled with CO2, so avoiding health risks at all in this day in age will be impossible as long as we continue to use gas.

Second of all, no one is purposefully or intentionally harming another person by smoking around them. So to label them as “criminals” is absolutely ridiculous unless they’re running around blowing smoke in peoples faces saying “HA HA, now you have second hand smoke cancer!”. And on that note, you would have to have LIVED with someone long enough who smoked in order to get second hand cancer. I think it’s safe to say that if you were around a person who smoked for less than a minute, and outside, you will not automatically have cancer. Basic science people.

Third of all, if you really want to avoid the instant second hand smoke cancer that you think you will get, then here’s some advice I think I can bestow: MOVE. Nobody is forcing you to stand or sit or walk around someone who is smoking. It’s not that hard. I do it when I smell people who haven’t showered for a month, which I think is worse than the smell of cigarettes.

I don’t smoke. I’ve tried it, and it’s really not my thing. But I’m not going to go around and force other people not smoke. I think it’s ok that UNM has this new policy of having areas because they have a right as a private property to do what they feel is necessary. Disneyland has the same policy., but at least THEY have signs for their areas, and people there don’t go up to smokers and tell them they’re criminals and that they’re going to die sooner because of them.

So I’ll end this asking 2 things:

1. Be respectful to smokers, actually to ANYONE, whatever your beliefs. It doesn’t solve anything to be rude and/or offensive to anyone, and it’s definitely not going to change anybody’s mind about what they’re doing.

2. Put up some signage! Be like Disneyland and have some respect for your customers (and we’re customers because we pay to be there!). At least then people will be able to see where the areas are and avoid them if they don’t want to get the instant second hand smoke cancer.