More Colleges Adopt Smoking Bans

A growing number of U.S. colleges are adopting smoking bans. The Christian Science Monitor reports that many schools have adopted total bans, both indoors and out.

On Monday, the Ohio Board of Regents recommended a total ban on tobacco products at the state’s public colleges. In June, the University of Maryland announced all 12 of its institutions will become smoke free by July 2013. At schools in the City University of New York system, the use and advertising of tobacco will not be allowed beginning in September.

The American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation reports that as of July 1, 2012, there are at least 774 campuses that are 100 percent smoke free. According to the National Center for Tobacco Policy, between one-third and one-half of colleges in the United States have likely implemented a smoke-free policy, or are considering one.

The American College Health Association conducted a survey in the spring of 2011 that found 85 percent of college students described themselves as non-smokers, and 96 percent said they never used smokeless tobacco.

On most college campuses with smoking bans, the consequences for smoking are often nonexistent or minimal, the article notes. Sometimes repeat offenders will face university disciplinary measures, which vary from school to school. The policies generally are enforced by other students, who do not want to be around cigarette smoke.

    User Picture


    August 3, 2012 at 12:58 PM

    it is bad that the colleges and learning organization are misuse of their rights . the health is the main thing smoking makes it bad.The purpose of the lungs are to en hale oxygen and occasional medicine via an inhaler. That’s it.

    User Picture


    July 27, 2012 at 12:16 PM

    It is very troubling that colleges…centers of learning…centers of science and medicine…accept the claims of the anti-smoking campaign.
    Are there no microscopes or other technologies on campus to analyze a typical cigarette to see if it even contains tobacco (the ostensible target of outrage and legislation), or if it’s only tobacco, or if it contains industrial contaminants that are already known to cause so-called “smoking-related” illnesses?
    Are there no researchers who might look up legal Case History to find that the commonly-used EPA material about harms of “ETS” (environmental tobacco smoke) was thrown out of Federal Court (by anti smoking judge Osteen) as fraudulent? The EPA has neither challenged the substance of his determination nor fixed their ETS material.
    Are there no political education students or professors who can find that the pushers of such smoke bans are invariably economically-linked to the parts of the cigarette industry that most want to scapegoat smokers and the public domain tobacco plant for the harms caused by non-tobacco cigarette adulterants?
    (This refers to many pesticides, dioxin-creating chlorine, paper, ag biz, pharmaceuticals that supply pesticides and additives, and suppliers of cellulose for fake tobacco, radioactive phosphate tobacco fertilizers, and burn accelerants…and all of their insurers and investors.)
    Are there no History students who might look at the origins of Reefer Madness…the war on that other smokable, medicinal plant, cannabis…and how that was promoted by pretty much the same pesticide, chlorine industrial cartel that now pushes “Tobacco Madness” …or “Reefer Madness II”?
    Banning Industrial Contamination of Smoking Products is a legitimate and urgent direction. Banning use of Mother Nature’s “sinful” tobacco plant, which By Itself hasn’t yet been studied to justify public-interest-level prohibitions, is quite something else. See for reference material apparently not available at colleges or universities.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *