Smoking Banned In Illinois College Dorms

I believe smoking should all be banned from all university dorms. The reason why is second-hand smoke causes cancer and death. No student should be forced to inhale second-hand smoke. These dorms are also usually only used by the same students only during a single semester but during a new semester, some new students will get that same dorm and they should not be forced into a dorm that stinks with cancer causing second-hand harmful smoke. I also believe all dormatories and every place opened to students and the public that is enclosed (including hallways and especially at a universty) to be 100% smoke-free by law. I support the ban and I wish they would pass a nationwide ban on smoking in university and college dormitories. Also there are many roommates who do not want to breathe second-hand smoke from a smoking roommate anyway.

and I do believe students should be forced not to smoke in campus building including dorms

And also those who wish to smoke in their room are not obligated to live in the dorms, they can rent an apartment somewhere else that allows smoking. Remember: College dorms are usually shared accomidations and everyone has a right to clean air.

The ONLY issue here, is that the colleges are free to create their own rules.

If it were a private school and the government required them to go non smoking though, I would have to disagree.

A non smoking environment is better for everybody.

Contrary to the previous post, some colleges require students to live on campus for the first year or two if their commute is greater than x number of miles.

No smoking laws for all school dorms should be the law of the land nationwide. I realy can,t see why it hasen't been done before. This should be on top of the list,much more urgent than smoking bans in bars.

candid wrote:

No smoking laws for all school dorms should be the law of the land nationwide. I realy can,t see why it hasen't been done before. This should be on top of the list,much more urgent than smoking bans in bars.

Maybe it's because the government doesn't OWN all of the colleges and institutes of higher learning.

It's almsot funny how you and your ilk don't seem to grasp the concept of private property.

Somehow it's not fair to the non smokers if there are people smoking in the dorm. Seriously take it outside away from people who would like to remain healthy and not stink like smoker's do

Buy them, tax them, but can't smoke them. Makes sense to me! Only in America.

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe it's because the government doesn't OWN all of the colleges and institutes of higher learning.
It's almsot funny how you and your ilk don't seem to grasp the concept of private property.

So what you are saying Non-Cas- Fanis that laws for public safty should not apply if the dorm is privately owned. What makes you think the students in a private school should not be protected?

U of I used to have the smoking/nonsmoking question on their residence forms. But a lot of people lied because their parents were helping fill out the forms.

Alot of universities are funded by the state so they can be regulated and legislated by the government. I support the smoking ban because there are some students who are non-smokers and lots of times they get stuck living with a roommate who smokes and have to endure their toxic second-hand smoke while they sleep. The dormatories are not students' private homes anyways and therefore they can be legislated by the government and by the university and students can be forced to not smoke in their dorm rooms by law and it will still be justified to protect the health of others. In fact to discourage smoking anyway, they should quadruple the taxes on cigarettes.

John Doe wrote:

Alot of universities are funded by the state so they can be regulated and legislated by the government. I support the smoking ban because there are some students who are non-smokers and lots of times they get stuck living with a roommate who smokes and have to endure their toxic second-hand smoke while they sleep. The dormatories are not students' private homes anyways and therefore they can be legislated by the government and by the university and students can be forced to not smoke in their dorm rooms by law and it will still be justified to protect the health of others. In fact to discourage smoking anyway, they should quadruple the taxes on cigarettes.

John Doe,have you read your statement,in there you will read:":" students can be forced to not smoke in their dorm rooms,..????FORCED is not a good term in america.forced = violence!
are you a violent person are you going to break down doors and beat these kids???
if so we do not need people like you in the usa!
so do not force others to think like you,

This guy! mic seem to think that the safty of young people is of no concern. Perhaps like ,Cas-Non-Fan seem to indicate his lack of concern, mic also is not worried about public safty. When someone drinks and drives ,i think we all agree, they should be forced to stop,its much the same with smoking in dorms.

candid wrote:

<quoted text> So what you are saying Non-Cas- Fanis that laws for public safty should not apply if the dorm is privately owned. What makes you think the students in a private school should not be protected?

"public safety" does not equate with secondhand smoke.

smoke detectors do. so they're required.
emergency exits do. so they're required, too.

in order to claim secondhand smoke as an issue of public safety, you must first establish that it is indeed an actual health hazard. Secondhand smoke FAILS as a bona fide health hazard.

Otherwise, prohibiting tobacco smoking is a matter of choice of the schools directorship to decide.

Which is how things SHOULD be in America.

candid wrote:

This guy! mic seem to think that the safty of young people is of no concern. Perhaps like ,Cas-Non-Fan seem to indicate his lack of concern, mic also is not worried about public safty. When someone drinks and drives ,i think we all agree, they should be forced to stop,its much the same with smoking in dorms.

Secondhand smoke does NOT equate to drinking and driving.

Not in the same exact way, but have you read the surgeon generals report?

Kati wrote:

Not in the same exact way, but have you read the surgeon generals report?

Yes I have. And I don't mean the summary, I mean the full text.

Have you?

Kati wrote:

Not in the same exact way, but have you read the surgeon generals report?

The SG's report is based on studies that show no signifcant proof that SHS can hurt anyone. Don't read the report, read the actual studies if you really want to know the facts.

candid wrote:

This guy! mic seem to think that the safty of young people is of no concern. Perhaps like ,Cas-Non-Fan seem to indicate his lack of concern, mic also is not worried about public safty. When someone drinks and drives ,i think we all agree, they should be forced to stop,its much the same with smoking in dorms.

candid i was pointing out the word "forced"
a word you people use a lot!!! and about public safty, yes i am concerned about it.
now you get into drunken driving,here i am very concerned, i do not drink and totally against drinking,but you are not! I had a mother in law die from a drunk driver, but i would never vote to ban anything. that is legal.so do not judge me!!!

bdjunker wrote:

<quoted text>
The SG's report is based on studies that show no signifcant proof that SHS can hurt anyone. Don't read the report, read the actual studies if you really want to know the facts.

Reading the report is OK, though... especially the part where they talk about the confounding data present in all of the studies of nonsmokers exposed to ETS.

There are several places where they cite that secondhand smoke is not determinable as a factor in several areas of health.

The conclusions of the Surgeon General's Report doesn't jibe with the data within it.

And they DO mention that they are striving to acheive the objective of Healthy People 2010.