Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Digg
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
University of Maine President Robert Kennedy announced his approval of the Tobacco Free Campus Initiative to faculty senate members during their Feb. 24 meeting. Kennedy’s approval marks the end of a more than three-year process to institute a tobacco ban at the university.
The president said the initiative would promote a healthy lifestyle.
“After we have talked to many students and many different groups I wanted to inform you that we will be implementing the Tobacco Free Campus Initiative effective Jan. 1, 2011,” Kennedy said.
The Tobacco Free Campus Initiative is a campus-wide, three-phase ban on tobacco use proposed by the Tobacco Free Committee — a twenty-member group composed of faculty, staff and students.
Daniel Belknap, head of the Faculty Senate’s University Environment Committee, said the initiative does not require anyone to stop smoking, but that they not smoke on campus.
The first phase of the initiative, dubbed “the informational phase,” — which consists of a plan to educate the community about the new policy — takes effect immediately, according to UMaine spokesman Joe Carr.
The second phase, in which the university will request voluntary compliance, will begin Jan. 1, 2011. Posted signs and materials will be obvious to anyone on campus, according to Carr.
The last phase, in which enforcement of the policy will begin, starts in 2012. Carr said he hopes that by 2012 education efforts will have been so successful that “enforcement won’t be much of a problem.”
There is currently no plan established to enforce the initiative. Carr said plans will be developed by Student Affairs and other departments by the time phase three begins.
“I think [the initiative] is a model of responsible conduct, good behavior and high standards,” Kennedy said.
In response to a Jan. 27 recommendation from the Faculty Senate University Environment Committee, the Tobacco Free Committee hosted open forum discussions to discuss consequences of a potentially tobacco-free campus. The environment committee’s report stressed issues with enforcement, and the effect the initiative would have on long-term smokers — especially employees who may have been smoking for years. Belknap said he still worries about these factors now that the initiative has been approved.
Belknap expressed disappointment at forum turnouts. He explained that many people who attended the first meeting, which was intended to be a place for dialogue between the university community and the committee, misinterpreted the format.
The confusion resulted a lack of conversation in the meeting, which Belknap described as an “information dump.” He said the second meeting, as described by Belknap, was more productive. Approximately 60 people attended the two open forum discussions.
Dana said Kennedy would have considered alternatives if “major revelations” had arisen in research.
“The president was very open to receiving input,” Dana said.
Dana and Vice President of Financial Affairs Janet Waldron commissioned the Tobacco Free Campus Committee study in July 2007 on Kennedy’s behalf. Based on the committee’s June 2009 report, the Tobacco Free Campus Committee recommended the initiative to Waldron, Dana and Kennedy.
Kennedy acknowledged the initiative would cause lifestyle adjustment for smokers, but available resources would at least accommodate those trying to quit or adapt.
“We’re going to try to be a little bit more proactive with the educational and motivational aspect,” Kennedy said.
Dana said the tobacco-free nature of the university would be obvious in admission materials and that the initiative would appear on UMaine’s Web site.
The initiative will probably have an effect on employee health insurance, according to Dana, who said any change in cost will probably depend upon how many people request tobacco cessation services.
Dana and Kennedy were unable to say how much the initiative will cost, but Dana estimated the cost to be “very modest.” He explained many resources are already available on campus, such as the Alcohol and Drug Education Program, which he said would see increased use.
In other Faculty Senate news, The Academic Program Prioritization Working Group will host an open forum discussions March 29 in Wells Commons. Provost Susan Hunter said each degree granting college will be represented at the forum, where she will present initial findings to the group.
The senate passed a Program Creation and Reorganization Review Committee motion to consider the adoption of a doctoral degree program in Anthropology and Environmental Policy.
UMaine board of trustees representative Bob Rice said two new trustees — Samuel Collins and Eastern Maine Healthcare CEO Michelle Hood — have been nominated to the board. Student Government Sen. Ben Goodman was nominated to the University of Maine System board of trustees by Gov. John Baldacci.
Related Posts:- Chewing over a tobacco ban (April 14, 2008)
- Administration not planning for problems enforcing tobacco ban (March 22, 2010)
- Campus-wide tobacco ban (March 24, 2008)
- Tobacco ban opposed (October 22, 2007)
- This tobacco ban smells fishy (March 27, 2008)
Well I’m glad the identity of “Jun” has been narrowed to someone more specific.
I’m disgusted that someone in such an office would push for this kind of ban when it goes against what their job description entails; helping the students with substance abuse.
The alcohol and drug education program’s mission, in case you are such a hypocrite or can’t remember what it is, is as follows:
“The mission of the University of Maine’s Alcohol and Drug Education Programs is to change the campus drinking culture and gain a greater understanding of the dynamics of our community; provide substance use and abuse related education and resources to individuals and groups; empower students to make healthy CHOICES around the issue of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use; encourage an environment conducive to academic success where substance abuse is not tolerated; and continually monitor, measure, and improve our approaches to increase safety and reduce risks through primary prevention of substance abuse for members of our university community.”
In case you missed the point, I capitalized CHOICES to drive the point home.
The use of tobacco is a choice; no doubt a poor one but a choice that you, I and the prostitute on the corner are afforded by this country to make.
I don’t remember being taught that “choice” is part of a mandate, in any sense.
Clearly tobacco is not good for you, but as I’ve said, it’s a choice.
Your rights are no less than mine, granted, but this is not the issue. WE ARE EQUAL IN THE EYES OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM OF THESE UNITED STATES.
I don’t care if you’re a faculty member, I don’t give a damn who you are or what your life has been like, we all have the fundamental right to make these choices.
The bans of a public university are irrelevant, plain and simple.
Certainly, you can ban it indoors; this is just common sense. Not only that, it is by federal law. Outdoors however, makes tobacco illegal across the board.
“I don’t believe that my dead mother would have any problem with a smoking ban on this university. She left behind a growing family and never saw her grandchildren. She was not ready to die and none of us were ready to see her go. It was, and is, very sad.” – “Jun”
No doubt she would support a ban, she made the choice to smoke and came out as anyone would; DEAD. Few people willingly want to die, but smoke regardless because IT IS THERE RIGHT TO DO SO.
“You, like so many others, are afraid of losing your rights. You seem to not understand that the inability to hurt yourself (or others) with tobacco is actually a gain.” -”Jun”
Well it’s good to see you acknowledge that I, like anyone else of age, have the RIGHT to smoke.
“You are foolish to think that people in America have the right to make choices. People in America, like anywhere else, have the right to follow the law. You make choices from the available pool of allowed actions. Deal with it. It is fair.” -”Jun”
People do have the right to make choices as protected by law, but yes, you are correct; they must also follow the law.
However, there is a legal hierarchy and a university ban is at the very bottom. This “ban” has been instituted by the student senate and president Kennedy; not politicians. The laws of Orono are above the imaginary judicial/congressional system of a public university, the laws of Maine above that, and the laws of the federal government above that. The federal government protects our rights, at least in this case.
“You are the one who has been brainwashed. Your freedoms are allowed you because they serve a greater purpose than you smoking cigarettes. If the scope of your vision is so tiny that the only thing that you can think to do with the bill of rights is fight for your right to blow smoke in my face then you are small.” – “Jun”
You are so ridiculous and ignorant on your own that I don’t even have to respond.
“I am amazed at how often I see a phrase like “get over yourself” pointed in the opposite direction from where it belongs. I wouldn’t use those words, but they do apply to you. You are not so mighty and great as to warrant the privilege to make other people sick with your hobbies.” “-Jun”
You are correct, I don’t have the right to blow smoke in your face but I have the consideration for even the likes of you that I wouldn’t, in any situation. Conversely, YOU are not so mighty that you have the right to control the lives of others.
You don’t have the right to tell me I can’t smoke outdoors, in case you missed the point.
“It is interesting how you thought to use that phrase with me, who wants to protect myself and others, instead of yourself who wants the freedom to do something which hurts others.” -”Jun”
You have the right to protect yourself but not the right to limit MY rights to harm myself.
I believe an excellent example would be the movie “iRobot” that came out a few years ago. Everything we do is harmful to ourselves and/or others so the only thing we can do is be herded and treated like prisoners to protect ourselves from ourselves: no rights at all.
That’s not how it is though, WE ALL HAVE A CHOICE.
“This isn’t about ideals. People are sick and dying, painfully, terribly, from cigarettes. I don’t care about your choice to do harm. Perhaps I’m more sensitive to the issue since I witnessed it firsthand, many times, but that doesn’t make me wrong. You don’t deserve the rights you are ascribing to yourself, no one does. Smoke in your own home if you must. Die with the knowledge that you caused your own painful death, if that is your wish. Smoking is akin to suicide.” -”Jun”
People die from tobacco, stop stating this. If anyone reading this site doesn’t know it by now then I don’t know how they managed to find their way onto the internet and not drool in their shoes. It’s their right to make a choice, whether you like it or not. What you think about my rights is irrelevant; they are there though.
Smoking is suicide, if done continually, and a choice that nobody can say no to. It’s frankly none of your damn business, nor the campus’.
Until banned by federal law, no one under that level has any say.
“Economics aside, nicotine gum is a safer alternative to smoking and it doesn’t hurt another person. If you have healthcare then you should be able to get a prescription for it.” -”Jun”
Hardly. Nicotine gum isn’t worth the foil it’s packaged in. Apparently, we’re all truckers that smoke as hobbyists so we don’t have healthcare, remember?
This is the first comment to make me upset. You are a sick person to relate birth to smoking, as if the two were related in a manner of harm. Birth is the most sacred thing I can think of. You defame life with your ignorance of the meaning of words. You are a fool who clearly knows little.
“-Jun”
Good, glad to see you’re actually movable.
People die in childbirth and related circumstances, same as cigarettes.
Perhaps I am a fool but I know the words of a fool, scratching at nothing, when I see them.
At least I can articulate an argument democratically, comrade.
[Reply]
Jun Reply:
March 15th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
The closest you are ever going to get to the federal government protecting your rights is when you finally lose it and break the law, cracker jack.
[Reply]
“Until banned by federal law, no one under that level has any say.”
BAM, you did a really nice job!! Precise, logical and up to the point. Totally agree with you!
[Reply]
Jun Reply:
March 15th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
State government is not real, just an illusion.
Counties do not actually exist.
Municipalities are a lie.
[Reply]
There are many inaccuracies in the posts here. Many of you don’t seem to understand the nature of laws and the boundaries between federal, state, municipalities, public and private property.
A few who post here do not want to do what is right, but rather what is easy. It is easy to do nothing. It is right to take steps to improve your health and the general well being of everyone.
You hide behind a slogan of “don’t tread on my rights to make bad decisions.” You readily admit that you are making a bad decision and then expect that everyone fully support your right to do so regardless of how it affects you or the community; the idea is absurd. The saddest thing of all is that many of you who continue to smoke will become another victim of one of the most evil corporations in our history, and you’ll defend their right to kill you slowly, for a fee.
If the university passes a tobacco ban then I’m hopeful that you’ll quit smoking and do what is right, but if you won’t then you’ll have to smoke off campus. At that point it will be up to the town to decide where you can smoke.
[Reply]
Rob Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
I think YOU may have “the nature of laws and the boundaries between federal, state, municipalities, public and private property.” UMaine is a public, land-grant university. It’s public property. Just, for some odd reason, public property that has extra restrictions for some strange reason.
Also, I think it’s humorous that you’re still posting in here. I haven’t checked since this story was published but you think rather than sitting here arguing with a bunch of people who clearly do not and never will share your viewpoint, you might actually do something PRODUCTIVE if you really cared as much as you do about public health and smoker restriction.
“He’s pissing into the wind! How brilliant can he be?”
[Reply]
Jun Reply:
March 14th, 2010 at 1:13 am
just out for a lark.
[Reply]
kathryn Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Don’t tread on my right to make bad decisions, and I promise not to do that to you. I hear lots of hatred and barely disguised anger in Jun’s posts. It’s a bit frightening that someone like that can work at a university. It must be overwhelming to want so badly to control other people’s life choices and have so very little power to do that in the end.
[Reply]
Jun Reply:
March 15th, 2010 at 11:40 pm
You are a pathetic loser.
Seriously, you are.
I’m not upset about it. I just want you to know it.
People used to take their rights seriously. They used to speak out to protect people from violence of discrimination over something like race or gender. Some people still do, but you give activism everywhere a bad name. You are an idiot.
“Don’t tread on my right to make bad decisions, and I promise not to do that to you.”
Oh gee!
Really?
You promise?
This particular smoker can’t die fast enough for me. Puff, puff, puff… the clock’s ticking!
Don’t slow down now, baby!
[Reply]
studenttt Reply:
March 16th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
You essentially just told someone to go kill themselves. Faster than they were, actually, because their current pace was too slow for you. Because you want them dead.
Thanks for the help, Lauri. From reading your posts, my opinion on smoking has completely changed. I think I’ll throw the rest of my pack into the next trash can I see and start fresh. Maybe someday I can be as pure as you.
…Or be sure to blow a huge cloud of smoke directly into your face if I ever see you.
Jun Reply:
March 16th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Ha, Ha, Ha!
Oh, the guilt.
Please Stop Your Immature Snarkiness Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 9:36 am
No need to feel guilty. Nobody’s disappointed in you, just disgusted.
Jun Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 9:51 am
Disgusted?
Why?
Because I don’t value your life more than you do?
I’m not a doctor, not a saint, not a masochist.
Go ahead and smoke. Smoke a lot. There is no point in trying to convince the addicted.
Be disgusted with yourself if anything.
1: for your vile habit which makes you stink
2: for how little you care about your life
3: for your lack of self control
Just open up that fresh pack of butts, peel off the wrapper, pack it, take a whiff of that sweet unburnt stuff, and then stick it in your mouth, light it up and inhale. Inhale deeply. Take it all it.
Ha, Ha, Ha!
You are so weak.
You’ll die faster.
You’ve at least got until 2012. Don’t waste time.
PSYIS Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Actually I don’t smoke I just think some of your points are kind of disturbing – and also that you’re kinda dumb. I mean, you assumed I smoked just because I thought your wishing death upon people was a little messed up. Stop acting like a child.
kathryn Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
If you do work at this university, I hope you get fired. You should never be allowed near young people. You have no concern for anyone’s health as evidenced by your own words. You just want to control. Makes me think of that professor who opened fire and killed her peers during a meeting. YOU are scary stuff.
kathryn Reply:
March 21st, 2010 at 9:26 am
Do you work at this university? Did you work to establish the smoking ban?
Justin Reply:
March 27th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
I find it very difficult to believe that Jun is Lauri. I have talked with Lauri before and I do not see her as the type to sit on a computer and argue with students over this topic. Just throwing in my two cents. And I am not sticking up for Jun by the way I am very against the smoking ban on campus.
Now there are serious stances to take on this issue, the kind that would make for intelligent debate. Unfortunately Jun and everybody else has let this turn into embarrassing drivel. “Puff, puff, puff…don’t slow down now, baby!” This is sick stuff. Please grow up.
[Reply]
Jun Reply:
March 16th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Read the entire post, all the commentary, and you’ll see that I’m quite serious, drivel it is not.
I don’t have any problem letting insanely stubborn people rub themselves out, like they do their butts. I value life and that I’ve made clear. I don’t value all life the same. People who knowingly contradict their own will to live are sick and I can’t help them.
Sometimes the best thing to do with cancerous tissue is to remove it.
[Reply]
kathryn Reply:
March 20th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Unfortunately for you, there are those who will also not value the life of the hysterical shrew. That would be you. Surely, if you are educated, you already know that when zealots like you begin experiments in eugenics and sort out which lives are valuable and which are not, the zealot goes out in flames. Eugenics began in earnest in the early part of the 20th century. It ended, at least in the open, with the destruction of the movement in NAZI Germany. As we see from your post, it has come alive again disguised as a “health” movement. It will end again. Thanks though for exposing what you really are.
[Reply]
Jun Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 9:52 am
Those serious stances have already been taken, and returned with the most ridiculous arguments.
Fight fire with fire.
[Reply]
Hahahah, who cares!! The students that do smoke, don’t smoke cigarettes anyway…. HAHAHAHAH…. Get me a pack of kent golden lights!!! NOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW…. “i need my nic fix before class so I can smell like an ashtray!!”
[Reply]
That’s the spirit!
[Reply]
I feel like the longer we sit here and argue with Jun, the more obvious it is that she is 7 years old; at least mentally. Good work, I see that there is no reason to worry about YOU threatening my rights.
[Reply]
Jun Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 11:46 am
pas de touché
[Reply]
Jun, you really should see somebody about controlling your hatred and your need to control.
You also might want to put the twinkies down because your excessive weight will create a much greater burden on our fragile health system than a smoker.
[Reply]
Plato once wrote Socrates describing philosophy as “learning how to die.” Maybe smoking cigarettes is a purely philosophical endeavor then? Each smoker really a devout seeker of truth?
Alright, I admit i just wanted to mess with Jun.
[Reply]
Jun Reply:
March 18th, 2010 at 12:23 am
When you’re young you find yourself trying to open every new door, you always want to know what’s behind the next drawn curtain.
As you get older it happens that one day you suddenly find you’ve reversed direction, that you’re now closing doors and passing by opportunities to try something new and unknown. Because eventually, you realize that there’s more shit out there than there are shovels.
[Reply]
Jan provides a perfect example of what is wrong with sticking the state’s moralist nose in places it has no right to be. Democracy in government is “of the people” and laws they draft; “serve the people” [all of the people without exclusion] never the other way around, or you are talking about something completely different. Autonomy laws were written after the war to protect us against people who think exactly as she does, that some people are more worthy than others, as long as she is part of the largest crowd. Best babies contests on campus anyone?
If a person chooses to smoke it does not make them any different than anyone else no more or no less worthy of compassion and respect. The situation is no different than the choice to ride a bicycle or drive a car although the smoke produced by a car is a toxic risk to others whereas cigarette smoke never was more than annoying to others. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply ignorant of the facts at hand and should examine the evidence before believing everything you hear in TV commercials.
You can divide people in many ways to promote your personal politics and you should be defended in your rights to personal opinion. When you start dividing people by autonomous choices and divining moralist rules over the dominion of other peoples bodies, your opinions are nothing more than trash talk and hate mongering, to satisfy your own personal and sadistic addictions.
Jun; The others here who see you for what you are, should be commended as parties to the norm in their revulsion. Your problems are much more offensive than tobacco smoke ever was. You are the one who should be banned from campus in place of the people who smoke. At least until you agree to seek treatment, so that no one else is harmed by the belief, that you could ever represent the norm.
I see Jun as the stuck in the 20s Rockefeller disciple of eugenics. The long black dress buttoned up collar and marching boots with a red armband. A bible in one hand and a tambourine in the other. Spreading guilt as her weapon of choice, with verbal emotives and a wagging finger, moral turpitude and juvenile delinquent, in place of the words smoker or drinker?
Yes Jun we all know who you are, the only problem here; is your own life style choices, preaching the virtues of self sanctimony while basking in your own hypocritical denials.
Good luck with that, just stay away from the children. What you have is contageous and very dangerous if it spreads. Seek treatment.
How fitting the captcha verification words below are “cuckoos varsity” There is little doubt who that refers to.
[Reply]
No Johnny the sun does not shine out of the backsides of Public Health prohibitionists, they just think it does.
[Reply]
Sorry for the multiple posts, this one is precious and I had to comment.
Corporate evils? Takes one to know one.
I always say if you want to get to the truth, you have to follow the money.
Jun said;
“The saddest thing of all is that many of you who continue to smoke will become another victim of one of the most evil corporations in our history, and you’ll defend their right to kill you slowly, for a fee.”
As we should, in the name of capitalism and democracy…not to mention personal autonomy. That thing they were talking about when describing “a woman’s right to choose” Jun is obviously anti-abortion. AKA The back alley coat hanger crowd.
The tobacco Industry is no different than any other corporate for profit industry, providing a product in demand, and none of them majored in axe murder 101, such as apparently is the norm, among the cult membership of Public health “Stakeholders”. Such as Jun who seeks death to her enemies. Listed at the world Health Organization and other places, under the heading public health “stakeholder partners” who will profit by support of the “Tobacco Control” social marketing campaign.
The evil empire Luke; The much feared “dark side”.
This would be the same corporation who sells you Kraft Dinner and sponsors Kraft Hockey-ville for little kids?
Peanut butter merchants are going to take over the world?
“They want to kill us all I tell ya”. Jun et al…
[Reply]
I never met either of my great grandfathers. Its too bad Tobacco Control and Public Health organizations weren’t around sooner, to prevent them and millions of others from making the mistakes that undoubtedly led to their demise.
We could be out in the yard playing tackle football or road hockey right now, if only they knew the secrets Public Health knows.
Oh wait now! Public Health were around weren’t they?
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v31/n1/full/ng0502-17.html
“Social essentialism has always been with us, as The Unfit makes abundantly clear. Clusters of individuals sharing an attribute such as color, background or belief are lumped into the same mental category, onto which are projected the qualities most feared or despised by rival groups. Any awareness of the enormous range of appearance, thought and temperament that exists in any human group is thus replaced by a crude, usually ugly, caricature.
Not surprisingly, social essentialism has furnished excusatory captions to many of humanity’s most barbaric actions against the weak and friendless—from the ‘bestial’ aborigines of Victorian propaganda, to the ’subversive’ Jew of Nazi ideology. This kind of dehumanization typically accompanies a withdrawal of compassion. It also allows unspeakable actions to be taken against masses of people without the perpetrators’ sense of themselves as moral beings and model citizens ever being seriously troubled.”
They have always been there.
[Reply]
http://newyorkcity.injuryboard.com/defective-and-dangerous-products/study-finds-lingering-nicotine-on-smoker-clothes-car-and-home-is-health-hazard-especially-to-children.aspx?googleid=278100
It is about health.
It is clear that smoking outside impacts the health of those around you. The only point that any of you have to make is that you don’t care about anyone, not even yourselves.
It is easy to not worry about your quote unquote rights to a cigarette. Hopefully soon, beyond not smoking on campus, we’ll be free of you entirely!
[Reply]