Designated smoking areas reinforced with higher fines
We at The Advocate understand the board of education’s decision if it chooses not to create designated smoking areas, based off the MHCC Smoking Survey published by our Associated Student Government (ASG). We do not believe harsher punishments or fines alone would be effective for discouraging smoking on campus. Knowing no such decision has yet been made, we would offer a compromise: We believe both that designated smoking areas should be created, and that the fine for smoking elsewhere on campus should be raised.
In the smoking survey, 753 people participated, and 17 percent identified themselves as smokers. This means the majority of individuals who took the survey are nonsmokers subject to potential secondhand smoke. The current fine for smoking on campus is $15, and it was suggested by ASG members that it be raised to $50. Though the majority of smokers taking the survey said they dispose of their cigarette butts in ashtrays and garbage cans, cigarette butt litter is still seen on campus. Many responses in the survey indicate that litter from cigarette butts, along with forcing smokers to go off campus – most of whom go to the bus stop in front of campus – do not create a good image for MHCC. We agree.
Image isn’t the only problem when it comes to smoking on campus, however. Only 30 percent of those surveyed answered that they are never exposed to secondhand smoke. One individual commented that “there are children that walk around campus sometimes in the daycare and I wouldn’t want them being exposed to any kind of secondhand smoke.” Though we personally couldn’t care less about whether we are exposed to cigarette smoke, we agree that both young children, and high-schoolers on campus are at risk for secondhand smoke.
If the board chooses to take only one of the suggestions, we believe a few things could happen. Like many of the respondents, we agree that having designated smoking areas won’t be entirely effective – without reinforcement. Hearing from smokers, we know that the colder it is outside, the less likely they are to walk to the street for a cigarette. Knowing this, what would make us believe they will use the smoking areas even if they are created?
However, if the only change is the fine for smoking on campus is raised, that will spark anarchy! We say ANARCHY! We’re only kidding, of course.
The fact of the matter is, only 21 percent who answered in the survey agreed the current smoking policy is effective. More often than not, smokers are being waved off and asked “not to do it again.” This shows that MHCC is not that concerned with smokers on campus. Smokers at MHCC are on the curb right now, literally. Rather than punishing them for their addictive activities, MHCC should assist smokers with resources.
We suggest creating both designated smoking areas and charging higher fines for unauthorized smoking. Smokers have made clear that the creation of smoking areas will be utilized; their problem now is the distance and time it takes to walk out to the front bus stop. Having more designated areas on campus will cut down in people smoking in parking lots, outside buildings, in the tunnels, and behind the computer labs.
Though there will still be cigarette litter, designated areas will have more concentrated amounts. These smoking areas will cut down cigarette remnants throughout the entire campus. Many respondents made clear they do not believe more designated smoking areas will be used, however – and this is why we propose to raise the fine for smoking on campus, as well. The higher fine will enforce, and encourage, smokers to use the new smoking areas – not to mention helping to offset any costs to create designated smoking areas for the school.
Survey participants are still worried on whether secondhand smoke will be a risk. This is a risk we can not predict since we don’t get to decide where these smoking spots will be. We highly suggest that the smoking areas be created out of the way of nonsmoking students, staff, and visitors – so that we don’t have to hear them complain about the smell, and so we don’t have to hear smokers complain about walking to the bus stop.
………..Another Anti-Smoking Hoax Debunked. Those cigarette filters are 100% biodegradable.
The cigarette butt menace was created to support outdoor smoking bans because many non-smokers will accept that secondhand smoke is not harmful in an outdoor setting.
The anti-smoking zealots admit that the tobacco and paper in cigarette butts are biodegradable, but claim that the cellulose acetate cigarette filters are a plastic, like styrofoam and polystyrene, and will contaminate the earth forever. This is not true. Cellulose acetate is a wood product. It is completely degradable through biological, chemical, and photo chemical degradation mechanisms.
Sorry, I don’t have a nice, easy to read MSM news article to give you. I have research papers from cellulose acetate manufacturers. Ann W., a commentor to a Dick Puddlecote article, put me onto this.
“STUDY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION OF CIGARETTE FILTERS: A simulation of the Roadside or Parking Lot Environment.” Stephen K. Haynes, et al,., Research Laboratories, Eastman Chemical Company, Kingsport Tenn.
“In recent years there has been increasing public awareness of items which may be discarded as litter with particular attention being given to cigarette filters. Some studies have concluded that when cigarette filters are introduced into the environment, they either do not degrade or degrade very slowly. Previous work in our laboratories has demonstrated that cigarette filters biodegrade readily in environments where mixed microbial populations can thrive. The purpose of this study was to examine the changes occurring in cigarette filters over time in an environment similar to that of a parking lot or roadside area. In this environment, exposure to sunlight, moisture and wind occur, but there is limited exposure to microbial attack … ”
“CONCLUSIONS: Previous work has demonstrated that cigarette filters biodegrade readily in environments where mixed microbial populations can thrive. This work demonstrates that current commercial cigarette filters also degrade when exposed to an environment which is not optimal for microbial biodegradation.”
…………………..
The butts contained dangerous chemicals such as cadmium, arsenic and lead
Arsenic, cadmium, and lead in California cropland soils: role of phosphate and micronutrient fertilizers.
2008
“Phosphate and micronutrient fertilizers contain potentially harmful trace elements, such as arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), and lead (Pb). We investigated if application of these fertilizer increases the As, Cd, and Pb concentrations of the receiving soils. More than 1000 soil samples were collected in seven major vegetable production regions across California.
Benchmark soils (no or low fertilizer input) sampled in 1967 and re-sampled in 2001 served as a baseline. Soils were analyzed for total concentrations of As, Cd, Pb, P, and Zn. The P and Zn concentrations of the soils were indicators of P fertilizer and micronutrient inputs, respectively. Results showed that the concentrations of these elements in the vegetable production fields in some production areas of California had been shifted upward.”
Nothing like a bit of selective information to further the cause, eh? Never mind the cigarette ends, what about the vegetables?
Another reason I always use manure.
That’s funny going to the bus stop and as the bus stops during its 3 minute stop produces the equivalent of nearly 300,000 cigarettes in equal chemical mass and Particulate matter. Then the human being standing their breathes in and out each day the equivalent of 15 packs of cigarette just from normal air. They also exhale hundreds of the same chemicals in cig smoke……….our we banning busses and non smoking carcinogen produci humans yet and whats their fine for breathing on campus!
OSHA also took on the passive smoking fraud and this is what came of it:
Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13163/reference-manual-on-scientific-evidence-third-edition
This sorta says it all
These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.
So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ”SAFE LEVELS”
OSHA SAFE LEVELS
All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.
For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.
“For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.
“Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.
Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.
“For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes.
For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.
The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.
So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :
Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA.
Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!
Well a little history lesson is now needed I can see:
Look who first invented the Passive smoking Fraud
Hitler’s Anti-Tobacco Campaign
One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel — upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast — liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase “passive smoking” (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus (“Tobacco and the Organism”), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.
That’s fine company are so called public health depts. keep with ehh!
History can shed so much lite on todays own movement it just amazes the mind………..
Hitler Youth had anti-smoking patrols all over Germany, outside movie houses and in entertainment areas, sports fields etc., and smoking was strictly forbidden to these millions of German youth growing up under Hitler.”
Something along the lines of the Hitler Youf:
Proctor (1997) continues that “throughout this period, magazines like Genussgifte (Poisons of taste or habit), Auf der Wacht (On Guard), and Reine Luft (Pure air) published a regular drumbeat against this ‘insidious poison’ [tobacco], along with articles charting the unhealthful effects of alcohol, teenage dancing, cocaine, and other vices. Dozens of books and pamphlets denounced the ‘smoking slavery’ or ‘cultural degeneration’ feared from the growth of tobacco use. Tobacco was branded ‘the enemy of world peace’, and there was even talk of ‘tobacco terror’ and ‘tobacco capitalism’ …. The Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls both published antismoking propaganda, and the Association for the Struggle against the Tobacco Danger organized counseling centers where the ‘tobacco ill’ could seek help” (p.456-457); “Hitler Youth had anti-smoking patrols all over Germany, outside movie houses and in entertainment areas, sports fields etc., and smoking was strictly forbidden to these millions of German youth growing up under Hitler.”