DescentBB

So,

At my local college, there is the issue of if it is a good idea or not to be stricter on enforcing people to smoke in designated smoking areas or not. Apparently, there are designated smoking areas but no one uses them due to the fact that the college decided to rely on "peer pressure" to get smokers to smoke in these areas. Instead, they get ignored and you find about 20 to 40 people standing around on breaks outside of the Tech building every single day smoking on their breaks, including students and professors alike. It is pretty obvious that peer pressure is not working.The school is really good about giving people parking tickets for parking for over 5-10 minutes without a pass but they can't seem to see 20-40 people stranding around the doorways smoking or enforce it?

So what do you guys think about smoking policies? Should the be enforced? Why and why not?

I don't really care if people smoke or not personally but I do feel that it is best to separate it from those who choose not to.

Enforce the hell out of them. Cigarette smoke smells like ★■◆● and makes me gag, even when I'm passing by a smoker outside. If you're going to be stupid enough to smoke, at least do the rest of the population the courtesy of moving away from them.

Perhaps a more important question I have is; how are these policies being enforced at campuses that you may have attended/may be attending?

as the descendant of tobacco planters, and a 40 year smoker, my first tendency would be that such restrictions are wrong. However, I am rational enough to realize that smoking isn't good for you, and that merely having a few non-smoking areas is akin to having a no-peeing section in a swimming pool. Now, my college years are way in the past, but I couldn't imagine a college that banned smoking, although times have changed. Still, I suspect that, in the South especially, where there are seemingly far more smokers, such regulations would be worked around or unenforced.

Having been a smoker long ago and rarely still enjoy a good cigar, I find it puzzling why someone growing up now-a-days would ever get started smoking. The Marlboro Man died from lung cancer, all cigarette ads like we had in the 50's and 60's are banned, so what is the trigger to get someone started?

woodchip wrote:Having been a smoker long ago and rarely still enjoy a good cigar, I find it puzzling why someone growing up now-a-days would ever get started smoking. The Marlboro Man died from lung cancer, all cigarette ads like we had in the 50's and 60's are banned, so what is the trigger to get someone started?

I don't know about you, but I can't think of anyone I've ever know who took up smoking as a mature adult. Seems to me that the age range of 14-20 is the key area in which you either get the habit or do not. Trigger, as with much behavior is a combination of rebellion, peer pressure, teenage stresses and wishing to be 'adult', IMHO.

But that's what I don't understand. There are no triggers portraying smoking as something glamorous, adult or manly.

woodchip wrote:But that's what I don't understand. There are no triggers portraying smoking as something glamorous, adult or manly.

maybe to you or I, but we are not 15 years old. I think those triggers still very much exist. Forbidden fruit and all that......

From my experience (teenager in the early '90s, similar to today) it was mostly peer-pressure, with a little teenage-exploratory inclination.

On the original topic, at both my undergrad and grad schools, there were pretty strictly-enforced smoking areas. From what I heard, that actually helped a bit with smokers who wanted more motivation to quit, because the smoking areas were generally located in unappealing places that required extra time to get to/from.

ancient history:
My prep school had a smoking area designated. Zero restrictions in the dorms at college, or in public areas of campus in either undergrad or grad school.
......How times change.

vision wrote:New Anti-Smoking Ads Warn Teens 'It's Gay To Smoke'

God I love The Onion.

One thing that always made me chuckle when I was at college were the "No Smoking" signs on the blackboards in our physics classrooms. Apparently there was a time when smoking in class was a legitimate possibility.

no one ever smoked in the organic chem labs.....just sayin'

Top Gun wrote:Enforce the hell out of them. Cigarette smoke smells like ★■◆● and makes me gag, even when I'm passing by a smoker outside. If you're going to be stupid enough to smoke, at least do the rest of the population the courtesy of moving away from them.

TG, I have to stop you on this. What they do with their lungs is their own choice. If you don't like the area, you can always go somewhere else. Don't try and get people to enforce your will.

I'm a non-smoker and I agree with slick on this one. It's just not fair to make smokers 'go away' if you don't like it.

Yeah, they can do whatever the hell they want to their own body, but last time I checked, we all have to share the air, and I think most of us prefer ours without foul-smelling carcinogens in it. It's basically a form of pollution, and while I have no problems with designated areas for it, the onus isn't on the people who aren't doing it to move away.

Top Gun wrote:Yeah, they can do whatever the hell they want to their own body, but last time I checked, we all have to share the air, and I think most of us prefer ours without foul-smelling carcinogens in it. It's basically a form of pollution, and while I have no problems with designated areas for it, the onus isn't on the people who aren't doing it to move away.

^ This.

Top Gun wrote:Yeah, they can do whatever the hell they want to their own body, but last time I checked, we all have to share the air, and I think most of us prefer ours without foul-smelling carcinogens in it. It's basically a form of pollution, and while I have no problems with designated areas for it, the onus isn't on the people who aren't doing it to move away.

so, by this logic, it isn't the job of a pedestrian to move away from a diesel spewing truck parked by the curb? Stunning. I am ok with indoor restrictions, but you make it seem as if you want open air restrictions as well. Am I wrong in reading you that way?

Back to what OP is saying, smokers routinely infringe on the rights of people who want to enter and exit a building peacefully without breathing second-hand smoke. I see it all the time. A sign saying "please do not smoke within 15 feet of this doorway" and some gang of smokers completely disregarding it. I would love for there to be a way of enforcing even tighter restrictions on smoking in public places. It's the nastiest thing ever. Of course, all you "cool" addicts wouldn't think so.

And as for your diesel truck analogy, yes, I want all fossil fuel burning to stop too. I don't want to breathe it. I'd prefer not to breathe any smoke or fumes at all. Call me crazy for wanting clean air.

Top Gun wrote:Yeah, they can do whatever the hell they want to their own body, but last time I checked, we all have to share the air, and I think most of us prefer ours without foul-smelling carcinogens in it. It's basically a form of pollution, and while I have no problems with designated areas for it, the onus isn't on the people who aren't doing it to move away.

so you want us to tell them to move away? You have the power to move away from an environment you dislike. Making others move away because you don't like what they're doing is selfish and self-righteous.

I don't see my rights being infringed on by a smoker any more than walking in a crowd and smelling someone's body odour.

callmeslick wrote:

Top Gun wrote:Yeah, they can do whatever the hell they want to their own body, but last time I checked, we all have to share the air, and I think most of us prefer ours without foul-smelling carcinogens in it. It's basically a form of pollution, and while I have no problems with designated areas for it, the onus isn't on the people who aren't doing it to move away.

so, by this logic, it isn't the job of a pedestrian to move away from a diesel spewing truck parked by the curb? Stunning. I am ok with indoor restrictions, but you make it seem as if you want open air restrictions as well. Am I wrong in reading you that way?

I wouldn't say universal, but I would say there are certain outdoor areas that should have restrictions placed on them as well. Near the entryway of a building is a prime example, because a person smoking near there forces everyone entering or exiting to breathe the stuff in. Hell, I can't even stand people smoking upwind of me in a random place, though there's not really anything I could do to stop them. As far as the truck goes, yes, I think there is a responsibility that falls on the truck driver, because diesel exhaust is nasty...and as it turns out, many cities/municipalities have anti-idling ordinances in place to prevent trucks from just sitting there with the engine running.

Ferno wrote:so you want us to tell them to move away? You have the power to move away from an environment you dislike. Making others move away because you don't like what they're doing is selfish and self-righteous.

I don't see my rights being infringed on by a smoker any more than walking in a crowd and smelling someone's body odour.

Yes, we should tell them to move away, because they're the ones causing the pollution. A bunch of people just standing around in a particular spot aren't doing anything at all to harm the people around them. A few people standing around smoking ARE actively harming the people around them. They're the ones doing the offensive activity, so it's on them to move away from anyone who isn't smoking.

woodchip wrote:Having been a smoker long ago and rarely still enjoy a good cigar, I find it puzzling why someone growing up now-a-days would ever get started smoking. The Marlboro Man died from lung cancer, all cigarette ads like we had in the 50's and 60's are banned, so what is the trigger to get someone started?

completely with you. Especially here in Britain, where a pack costs about $10 nowadays. Still, people smoke and smoke.

Foil wrote:From my experience (teenager in the early '90s, similar to today) it was mostly peer-pressure, with a little teenage-exploratory inclination.

Exactly that, I believe. And of course the role models of the cooler kids.

I started smoking because I smoking weed gave me a horrible cought. So I saw smoking as a training exercise. Like most of my frieds, smoking cigarettes went on for a lot longer than smoking weed.

Top Gun wrote: Yes, we should tell them to move away, because they're the ones causing the pollution. A bunch of people just standing around in a particular spot aren't doing anything at all to harm the people around them. A few people standing around smoking ARE actively harming the people around them. They're the ones doing the offensive activity, so it's on them to move away from anyone who isn't smoking.

really? so, what's stopping the non-smokers from moving somewhere else?

fact is, you're putting your comfort level over someone elses' freedom to do what they choose where they choose. You can't be doing that. Just because YOU find it offensive, doesn't give you any right to deny someone else their freedom.

Ferno wrote:fact is, you're putting your comfort level over someone elses' freedom to do what they choose where they choose. You can't be doing that. Just because YOU find it offensive, doesn't give you any right to deny someone else their freedom.

This isn't about comfort level, it's about good health. I don't want another person's idiotic decision to affect my health. That's also why we have drunk driving laws. It's not about comfort or offense, it's about making smart decisions about our lives. Smoking isn't one, and can in no way, shape, or form be justified.

And you are forgetting about OP. The point here is, smokers are disregarding policy to make others feel uncomfortable because they think it is their right to do so, which isn't. You want to ruin your health? Go ahead, just don't ruin mine while you are at it. I should be free to be as healthy as possible without having to carry the burden of another person's addiction.

Lock them all up in a room and let them smoke their brains out. More of these things, please:

I don't know about you, but I can't think of anyone I've ever know who took up smoking as a mature adult. Seems to me that the age range of 14-20 is the key area in which you either get the habit or do not. Trigger, as with much behavior is a combination of rebellion, peer pressure, teenage stresses and wishing to be 'adult', IMHO.

Yep, I agree. i've always said that if you don't start before your 20 or so you probably never will. I smoke cigs, but I'm cutting down hard on them too. They are the next to go. I've got nothing against smoking areas as long as they are not like Vision posted. Second hand smoke is worse than the first. The first time it goes into your lungs it's converted to something else, the second time around it's even worse. I got off the plane in ATL not long ago, wanted a cig bad. Lol, Walked to the smoking area and you could hardly see in there. I opened the door and hollered "they must be trying to kill all of yall." Then went outside to smoke. I think a certain amount of respect should be given to non-smokers.

vision wrote:This isn't about comfort level, it's about good health.

yes. your health. that you can control by moving away. jeez.. is it me or does it feel like a smoker witchhunt in here?

I don't want another person's idiotic decision to affect my health.

then don't. walk away. don't stand there and tell the person to stop what they're doing because of what you want. that's selfish.

That's also why we have drunk driving laws.

and this is where I stopped reading. Associating smoking with drinking and driving? Sorry man but this is where your post just fell apart. Again, I must state that I am a non-smoker.. but unlike a lot of people here, I understand the fact that each indidvidual has the choice to make themselves comfortable.

So, no. I don't think it should be enforced, because it's masquerading as non-smokers trying to control smokers. Justify it all you want, try and change the target all you want but the core really is all about the want to control others. And you know what? the policy is bull★■◆●. and the smokers probably think it's bull★■◆● too.



here's an exercise I want you guys to try. Imagine if you are a smoker. And someone came up to you and told you that you need to move away, or outside into the cold.. or off-property, or even down to the next block. and imagine that every place you stopped, someone came up to you and told you to move.. because they all told you they can't stand your stink. and be honest. How would you react? would you think it was unreasonable, even slightly, to be asked such a thing?



You see a solution. I see a cell.

Ferno wrote:really? so, what's stopping the non-smokers from moving somewhere else?

fact is, you're putting your comfort level over someone elses' freedom to do what they choose where they choose. You can't be doing that. Just because YOU find it offensive, doesn't give you any right to deny someone else their freedom.

Am I speaking another language here or something? Non-smokers aren't the ones creating the health issue, so they're not the ones who should be moving. Everyone has the right to breathe decently-clean air, and if someone's going to infringe on that right, it's on them to move away.

And I'm sorry, but no one has the "freedom" to expose me to something toxic against my will. They do, however, have the freedom to smoke somewhere where they won't disturb anyone else.

Regarding your last point, I don't really give a ★■◆● what smokers would think. They're participating in an incredibly-stupid and harmful habit, so maybe getting kicked out of everywhere should be a wake-up call that it's time to quit.

Top Gun wrote: Am I speaking another language here or something? Non-smokers aren't the ones creating the health issue, so they're not the ones who should be moving. Everyone has the right to breathe decently-clean air, and if someone's going to infringe on that right, it's on them to move away.

right. a health issue. that's been shown to be cherry-picked. Pay close attention to what Dr. Elizabeth S. Whelan has to say about all this. Even the EPA study done in 1993 was shot down (demonstrated no link between second hand smoke and cancer).

And I'm sorry, but no one has the "freedom" to expose me to something toxic against my will. They do, however, have the freedom to smoke somewhere where they won't disturb anyone else.

You're saying this as if you're being forced into being in the same area as them and there's no way out. Come on TG, you have better sense than that. you know you have the power to go to another location if you desire.

Regarding your last point, I don't really give a ★■◆● what smokers would think. They're participating in an incredibly-stupid and harmful habit, so maybe getting kicked out of everywhere should be a wake-up call that it's time to quit.

And that's a problem. Your "i don't give a ★■◆●" attitude is really a disappointment. It's saying that you don't care about other people. just because you don't like the smell does NOT give you the right to force others into behaving the way you want [because i'm more important than you and the world revolves around me]. The problem here isn't the smokers. The problem here is the holier-than-thou attitude that you and a lot of other people have adopted (including the people pushing this policy at Messenjah's college) . Controlling others has always ended in disaster, and there's absolutely no scientific proof that supports that second-hand smoke is harmful.

Ferno wrote:right. a health issue. that's been shown to be cherry-picked. Pay close attention to what Dr. Elizabeth S. Whelan has to say about all this. Even the EPA study done in 1993 was shot down (demonstrated no link between second hand smoke and cancer).

BZZT! Wrong! (Yes, it's a Wiki link, but that section is jam-packed with journal article references.) Amusing videos by comedians aside, you know what groups are the ones funding the studies that claim no harmful effects of secondhand smoke? Take a look. Sounds a hell of a lot like what the tobacco companies were doing back when the harmful effects of smoking first became publicized, doesn't it? But I'm sure their motives are purely benevolent.

You're saying this as if you're being forced into being in the same area as them and there's no way out. Come on TG, you have better sense than that. you know you have the power to go to another location if you desire.

Non. Smokers. Should. Not. Be. The. Ones. Who. Have. To. Move. How. Many. Times. Must. I. Say. This.

You know what, since that tack obviously isn't working, let's try a little analogy here. Say I'm sitting outside on a park bench, and some random stranger walks up, sits down next to me, and starts poking my arm...and they just don't stop. And when I ask them to stop, they get in a huge huff and complain that their right to poke people's arms is being infringed upon. Now, by your logic, the only real course I should have considered there would be getting up and walking to another bench, so as to remove myself from poking range. Yes, I could have done that...but why the hell should I have to? Is it unreasonable to expect that the individual shouldn't be poking my arm in the first place? The exact same thing is going on in this discussion, except that this time, apparently I'm the one who's supposed to walk away, and the other person has done nothing wrong.

And that's a problem. Your "i don't give a ★■◆●" attitude is really a disappointment. It's saying that you don't care about other people. just because you don't like the smell does NOT give you the right to force others into behaving the way you want [because i'm more important than you and the world revolves around me]. The problem here isn't the smokers. The problem here is the holier-than-thou attitude that you and a lot of other people have adopted (including the people pushing this policy at Messenjah's college) . Controlling others has always ended in disaster, and there's absolutely no scientific proof that supports that second-hand smoke is harmful.

I "don't care about other people"...because I think smokers shouldn't expose non-smokers to secondhand smoke. That's pretty goddamn rich.

Ferno wrote:

I don't want another person's idiotic decision to affect my health.

then don't. walk away. don't stand there and tell the person to stop what they're doing because of what you want. that's selfish.

You keep forgetting the point, even though it's been mentioned several times. The problem is inconsiderate smokers. There are smoking policies set up as a compromise. You have an unhealthy addiction and we don't want any part of it. Rather than banning it outright, you can smoke over in this section, away from the public traffic. I want to walk in and out of a building without breathing cigarette smoke. Why is this such an unreasonable request?

Ferno wrote:

That's also why we have drunk driving laws.

and this is where I stopped reading. Associating smoking with drinking and driving? Sorry man but this is where your post just fell apart.

Stopped reading? Well you better start again. This is just one example, but our legal system is filled with a multitude of other similar laws. Don't like the drunk driving analogy? Try noise ordinances. You have a problem with the me blasting my music and keeping you up at night and ruining your sleep and subsequently your health? What if I said "too bad, I'm addicted to bass and it's might right to hear it whenever I want. Just put earplugs in, pussy." Or how about this: You like going to a theater and listening to screaming kids during a movie or performance? It's like that. Lack. of. courtesy.

Ferno wrote:here's an exercise I want you guys to try. Imagine if you are a smoker. And someone came up to you and told you that you need to move away, or outside into the cold.. or off-property, or even down to the next block. and imagine that every place you stopped, someone came up to you and told you to move.. because they all told you they can't stand your stink. and be honest. How would you react? would you think it was unreasonable, even slightly, to be asked such a thing?

Terrible thought exercise. If someone came up to me and said move away because I stink I would be scared for life. I would do everything in my power to correct my hygiene and never be smelly again. I certainly wouldn't tell them "too bad, I like the way I stink." I would never make excuses for or feel entitled to my harmful habits.

Another of those rare times I have to agree with vision.

I agree with Vision as well, even as a smoker, and especially on the 'front of buildings' thing. I never quite got where herding all smokers to a place where everyone has to run a gauntlet through a wall of smoke was accomplishing much.

vision wrote:The problem is inconsiderate smokers.

then we do something about the inconsiderate part. Shoving all of them away just because they smoke is not the way to go about it. The considerate ones will leave if asked nicely. none of this "if you smoke, we fine you' or whatever bull★■◆● the policy has in it. Punishing the good for the actions of the bad is simply unfair.

If someone came up to me and said move away because I stink I would be scared for life.

whoa, seriously? that would scar you for life? Maybe you should talk to someone if something that small has that effect on you.


Top gun, are you serious? you're dismissing the entire video because of what they do onstage? you're going to take a wiki article as a primary source over what actual scientists and skeptics say? You know you can't base an entire position on one piece.

sorry bud but the more you try and hammer away the way you do, the more you come across as a fundamentalist. That's really a dead-end way of going about things. Your position comes from the fact you hate the smoke smell (and yeah it's gross as ★■◆●), and mine comes from reading the research done by many sources, the video I posted (seriously, watch it), quite a few skeptical sites, and an entire childhood being around two heavy smokers. Vision's position is stemming from the fact there's a lot of inconsiderate smokers out there (They'd still be inconsiderate arsebiscuits even if they didn't smoke). We're all right in our own areas and can find common ground on going after the inconsiderates.

The thought exercise I posted was related to the inconsiderates, and was designed to at least try to make you think what it would be like in the shoes of someone else who you might not otherwise like.

Here's a little something I found during part of my research. I think you'll like it. http://www.wispofsmoke.net/PDFs/Skeptic.pdf

Now I'm a feller with a heart of gold
And the ways of a gentleman I've been told
The kind of guy that wouldn't even harm a flea
But if me and a certain character met
The guy that invented the cigarette
I'd murder that son-of-a-gun in the first degree

It ain't cuz I don't smoke myself
And I don't reckon that it'll harm your health
Smoked all my life and I ain't dead yet

But nicotine slaves are all the same
At a pettin' party or a poker game
Everything gotta stop while they have a cigarette

Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette
Puff, puff, puff and if you smoke yourself to death
Tell St. Peter at the Golden Gate
That you hate to make him wait
But you just gotta have another cigarette

Now in a game of chance the other night
Old Dame Fortune was a-doin' me right
The kings and the queens just kept on comin' round

And I got a full and I bet 'em high
But my bluff didn't work on a certain guy
He just kept on raisin' and layin' that money down

Now he'd raise me and I'd raise him
I sweated blood, gotta sink or swim
He finally called and didn't even raise the bet

So I said "aces full Pops how 'bout you?"
He said "I'll tell you in a minute or two
But right now, I gotta have me a cigarette"

Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette
Puff, puff, puff and if you smoke yourself to death
Tell St. Peter at the Golden Gate
That you hates to make him wait
But you just gotta have another cigarette

(Ah, smoke it! Hah! Yes! Yes! Yes!)

The other night I had a date
With the cutest little girl in the United States
A high-bred, uptown, fancy little dame

She loved me and it seemed to me
That things were 'bout like they oughta be
So hand in hand we strolled down lover's lane

She was oh so far from a cake of ice
And our smoochin' party was goin' nice
So help me cats I believe I'd be there yet

But I give her a kiss and a little squeeze
And she said, "ah, Marty, excuse me please
I just gotta have me another, cigarette"

And she said, smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette
Puff, puff, puff and if you smoke yourself to death
Tell St. Peter at the Golden Gate
That you hate to make him wait
But you just gotta have another cigarette.

I think vision was using a little hyperbole in "scared for life" (whether intentionally or not). No need to fixate on it. It would make a big impression on me if someone had to come up to me and tell me "you stink". I think the only reason it wouldn't make an impression on any of us is if we had previously erected an emotional barrier against it, or felt they were acting in spite. I'd like to remind you, Ferno, that smoking is a bad habit. It also evidences a certain lack of character. I'm gonna go out on a limb and venture a guess that smokers were not involved in the creation of non-smoking areas to begin with--why would they be? They breath the stuff by an act of will all of the time, and they feel it's all right to do so (some smokers do acknowledge, intellectually, that it is a bad habit). Smoking does a number of things to your body, but foremost it damages your lungs. I had a relative who died in an emaciated state from illness related to life-long smoking. I think you need to stop making it so much about "smell", because that really is only a nasty fraction of what non-smokers are trying to avoid.

Smoking laws are to prevent people who do not smoke from being forced to breath smokers' foul air as they go about their day-to-day lives, not to somehow specifically address "inconsiderate smokers". People have a tendency towards being inconsiderate--unless a person has been trained/developed otherwise it's only natural to consider what you know about yourself above what you might imagine is important to others, and especially when they're dissimilar. Breathing clean air would have to be a continuous social exercise if things were done your way, Ferno. Do you realize that? I don't yet absolutely grasp why, but people are, in general, anything but considerate. Any driver knows that.

Bottom line, IMO. If it's a matter of individual liberty, Ferno, however flawed his argument, is in the right. You can't have freedom and control. With so many people stupid enough to light up, freedom may be a stinky business in this case. However I believe that smoking ought to be dealt by private businesses--I don't want to smell smoke while I'm eating, etc. I'll go elsewhere when there's a choice. I also believe people could start campaigns to educate the public as to the negatives of smoking. Cigarettes make you a slave to the tobacco companies, plain and simple. There are plenty of good arguments against cigarette smoking. People just need to be enlightened/convinced.

Smoking eats up all your investment money I also don't think it's a matter of character, how could it be? It's an addiction with very astute chemists at the helm. It should be treated as such.

Perhaps a "weakness of character" would have been a better way to put it.

Ferno wrote:

vision wrote:The problem is inconsiderate smokers.

then we do something about the inconsiderate part. Shoving all of them away just because they smoke is not the way to go about it. The considerate ones will leave if asked nicely. none of this "if you smoke, we fine you' or whatever **** the policy has in it. Punishing the good for the actions of the bad is simply unfair.

I agree. But neither of us has a solution for how to deal with inconsiderate types. However, maybe if the stakes were high enough, the "good" smokers can put enough peer pressure on the "bad" smokers, since they certainly aren't considerate of "non" smokers?


By the way, I personally don't have any vices or bad habits except for shooting my mouth off -- and I'm currently in the designated place for it.

Ferno wrote:Top gun, are you serious? you're dismissing the entire video because of what they do onstage? you're going to take a wiki article as a primary source over what actual scientists and skeptics say? You know you can't base an entire position on one piece.

I'm glad you completely failed to read what I wrote. I said myself that yes, what I linked to was a Wiki article, but did you somehow miss the thirty-odd scientific journal articles cited in said article? I read through several of the abstracts, and they reveal in no uncertain terms a causal link between secondhand smoke exposure and various health conditions. There's a broad scientific consensus that this is the case, and it's not just based on a single Surgeon General's whims. And while I've seen several episodes of bull★■◆● and find it often amusing, it's hardly a substitute for hard research.

Everyone is talking about smoking on campus, how about drinking off campus? The President of OSU is growing the student population to make more money for the university. That's sparking a rapid growth of student housing, a lot of it in quickly erected huge apartment buildings taking up whole blocks and converted rental homes, usually located within quiet neighborhoods. Well, that's causing livability problems for those who live in those working class neighborhoods, because it seems college kids first come to university with the moronic impression that drunken partying all night, vandalism and obnoxious behavior is their God given right. Needless to say, the townies aren't happy about the problem, the police are understaffed and the university hasn't come up with their own set of rules concerning behavior off campus and how to remedy it.