46 Comments - The Captain - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 12:27 pm: College campuses have successfully eradicated underage drinking and marijuana use so this will probably work too. - Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 12:28 pm: Anything that makes it harder for young people to smoke is a good thing. - wordslinger - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 12:29 pm: No. It’s a legal activity. Too much like Prohibition. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 12:31 pm: No. I’m a former smoker. The current laws are enough already. These new attempts are just demonizing people who are addicted to a legal product. - Cooper - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 12:33 pm: —-The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Terry Link, D-Waukegan, said such legislation would encourage people to quit smoking.—- Bwaahhhaaahahaa! - Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 12:35 pm: No. Indoors bans I’m fine with, private companies can do what they wish on their outdoor property, but this is an overreach. This would have probably just encouraged me to skip class, which frankly didn’t take much encouragement anyway. - titan - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 12:36 pm: One of the universities I went to was a “dry” campus. I drank more there than any of the other universities I went to - Endangered Moderate Species - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 12:37 pm: Good luck enforcing this law. - Darienite - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 12:39 pm: And make sure they cancel those soda contracts since they contribute to obesity. Another fine example of big brother telling us what is good for us. FYI - I am a non-smoker. - ivote - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 12:39 pm: It’s not “demonizing people who are addicted to a legal product” it’s just making them take it somewhere else. If it discourages young people from smoking, great! (Maybe they won’t become addicts, or can break the addiction before it’s too late!) If you’ve ever passed by or through the “smoking zones” adjacent to some buildings, you KNOW you get second hand smoke. As to “The Captain” comment re: pot and alcohol, just because a law doesn’t STOP something entirely, doesn’t mean it won’t have some effect. Otherwise, why prohibit murder–people still murder! Plus there’s the smell, the clean-up of discarded butts, etc. Lots of reasons to ban smoking. Go for it! - John A Logan - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 12:43 pm: This is another fine example of why Illinois is the laughing stock of the nation. - Nearly Normal - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 12:44 pm: As the daughter who watched her father die of emphysema (and he was a life longer smoker who couldn’t quit the habit) I am all for it. - jerry 101 - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 12:46 pm: yes, this a great idea. Because kids that age always fall into line when they’re told not to do something by authority figures. Yeah, right. - olddog - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 12:47 pm: I said yes, purely out of my own selfish interest. I have emphysema (brought on by a *hard* 30-year nicotene addiction), and second-hand smoke chokes me up to the point I literally cannot breathe. To me, it’s a public health issue, not individual rights. You have no more right to blow smoke in my face than I have to spit into a salad bar. - Mason born - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 12:48 pm: So you are old enough to decide what to do with your life. Old enough to Drive. Old enough to lay your life down for your country. But you aren’t old enough to decide whether or not to smoke. It is banned indoors, it is banned in the dorm rooms, now you can’t sit in the middle of a lawn and smoke a cigarette. I don’t smoke never have but really?? What next a smoking ban if you do it off campus in your rented apartment? To be clear St. Charles (MO) was considering a ban in all private residences. - Because I Said so... - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 12:49 pm: I voted no and I’ve never been a smoker. This will would prohibit an employee from going to their car, with the windows rolled up and smoking. Employees would have to physically get off university property, in some cases several miles, in order to smoke. Who would be responsible for enforcement, the smoking police? I’m sure campus police have better things to do Buildings and dorms are smoke free but this takes it too far. - Just Observing - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 12:49 pm: Ridiculous. Yes, smoking is bad for your health, but campus is where students live… it would essentially be like a city banning all smoking city-wide. - downstate commissioner - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 12:50 pm: No. No real explanation. I made my office smoke-free before the ban, (cigarette smoke makes me physically sick) but the shop is okay, and as far as I am concerned it can remain that way, even though it is a govt. building. - Jimbo - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 12:50 pm: ivote, I’m fine with confining it to certain locations, even making it far from any entrance, but banning it from an entire campus means something entirely different. Do you need a smoker to be a mile away in order to not be bothered by it? - Stuff happens - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 12:53 pm: Looking forward to flying in and out of CMI without coughing my way through a cloud of workers’ smoke outside the doorways. - Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 12:53 pm: No. Even though cig smoke makes me sick (allergies) I have a fundamental problem with Nanny State laws. Further, most campus police departments these days are being challenged by real crime and don’t need Butt Patrol added to the duty roster. - Andrew - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 12:54 pm: Yes. As one who struggles with a nicotine addiction I welcome the law. It will help me and hopefully others refrain from smoking while on public property. - chefjeff - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 12:54 pm: So employees, on their break, sitting in their car, which is parked in a rented parking space cannot commit an otherwise legal activity. This is wrong in so many ways. - SG8prl - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 12:56 pm: The people I knew who were smokers in college started before college. I personally didn’t know anyone who started once they were there so I don’t know that this law will, “help people from ever starting,” as Sen. Link said. - Wumpus - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 12:57 pm: No, completely overreaching. They should hold a smoke in in front of Terry Link’s house. I don’t smoke, but this is too much. - Downstater - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 1:13 pm: Next up, Democrats will legalize marijuana and than ban smoking statewide. - Ghost of John Brown - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 1:14 pm: No campus ban unless the GA is willing to impose the EXACT same restrictions on themselves. Otherwise, it is just hypocritical. - G'Kar - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 1:23 pm: No, even though I really, really, really, don’t like smoking. But as other have pointed out, it will be impossible to enforce. - railrat - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 1:26 pm: another in the loooong list of moronic bills ! can’t enforce and speaks to controlling freedom to make choices, since 1818 we start each session with thousands of pieces of legislation, have a budget so out of whack its beyond logic and this is where we are at “spring break”??? sheesh - justbabs - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 1:42 pm: Yes, absolutely. As a former smoker, I can tell you that the lack of places to smoke outside of my home really helped me to quit. I believe that all Chicago City Colleges are already smoke free campuses and while there are some who ignore the rule, most people do not smoke on campus (small as they may be). If it helps prevent anyone from smoking, I’m all for it. - hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 2:07 pm: I am very curious how this smoking ban would even be enforced on the U of I campus where campus buildings are frequently mixed in with private residences/businesses once you get away from the engineering, main and south quads. - KM - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 2:31 pm: Overall, I’m fine with the idea. Obviously a burden upon others (what public health laws aren’t?). To those touting this as making Illinois a laughing stock, several states also have similar bans in place (Arkansas and Iowa that I recall) plus several other large universities either have bans or are considering them (Indiana and I believe Ohio State is considering one). In addition, unlike other areas, college campuses tend to be designed to encourage students to congregate outside so banning smoking in those areas seems to make sense (however I would also be on board for establishing certain smoking only areas). - walkinfool - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 2:54 pm: no I get the second-hand smoke argument for indoors, but that’s a wisp in the wind outside. Too much loco parentis all around - Archie - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 3:07 pm: If protecting the good citizens of Illinois from their nasty habits is the legislative goal, then the bill should be amended to include all State campuses. Let the legislators walk a little farther to get their “fix”. - Darienite - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 3:10 pm: Does this also mean they would ban smoking while tailgating at football games? Or ban cigars on their golf course? - Langhorne - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 3:29 pm: Enough already. - dupage dan - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 4:13 pm: If outdoor second hand smoke can actually cause a problem why don’t I get heart disease when I smell french fries? Seriously, as a former smoker I understand why smoking indoors is a problem for many folks who can’t stand the smell. As a person who is in a band playing in bars - I don’t think my voice would survive long if folks were smoking. I am not all that certain that second hand smoke is as dangerous as actually smoking a cigarette. I mean, don’t I also get the second hand smoke in addition to that which I would inhale as a smoker? I watched my grandfather die from COPD. I watched my uncle die from it. My brother inhales his cigar smoke and I can hear the disease in him, especially in the morning. Not a nice way to go. However, he is an adult and knows the consequences of his behavior. Nicotine is a VERY powerful addictive drug - perhaps one of the worst. I can tell you that it can be beat. I was up to 1 1/2 packs a day when I quit after 15 years. It can be done. Now, if I can just get past the McDonald’s…. - zatoichi - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 4:31 pm: Don’t smoke so I do not really care. Local hospital and schools make it hard to smoke anywhere near their buildings. Thought tobacco tax was to be a major revenue source? If I was a cop this would be pretty low on my priority list unless the department needed some arrest stats. - Norseman - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 4:42 pm: Should be smoke-free indoors only. - Judgment Day - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 5:07 pm: Uh, Sen. Link, have you really thought this out? Sure doesn’t seem like it. If you know the insides of many of the public universities here in IL, and you know anything at all about the various O&M (Operations and Maintenance) functions that occur, you would know that ’smoke testing’ goes on all the time as part of the O&M work. And in all sorts of areas (IAQ, any type of safety hoods, respiratory testing under OSHA requirements, etc.). Just from a cursory look at your proposal, it doesn’t look like you address any of this stuff. So some types of ’smoking’ on campus is ok, while other types are not? And what’s the plan for dealing with people from the community who come onto campus for a show, or a dinner, or some arts festival. Or they have a golf course, or athletic events? A lot of our universities spend a great deal of time, effort, and money working to be good citizens in their communities - and this tends to mean ‘tolerance’. This bill does nothing to further that goal, it actually works to drive a wedge between the two. IMO, this is just unbelievably poorly thought out legislation. - John - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 5:25 pm: I voted no because it won’t do anything. We all know how well the crackdown has worked on underage drinking NOT! This will have the same effect. With that being said I do know that there are some people over at EIU trying this as well and they have for the past six or seven years. No real progress made. - Richard Afflis - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 5:41 pm: Here is the problem- and it is already happening: First, we say that since smoking is bad, we are not going to allow it. We are not going to criminalize cigarettes, but we are going to say you have nowhere you can smoke and if you do, you will face consequences. Next, we say that obesity is bad. We then mandate either overtly or through fines or incentives that people go on diets. We make obese people feel guilty for obesity. We then say red meat is bad, large sodas are bad, Oreos are bad, you name it. We then create bans, fines, penalties, legally supported discrimination such as firing people from their job for smoking in their own home or car, or for being what someone decides is overweight. It is a slippery slope. Why not just make the argument “completely sane” by throwing in the “just one life” argument. - Just The Way It Is One - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 6:52 pm: Yes. It just ultimately causes folks cancer and they can still always smoke outside or in other establishments all they want. - county chairman - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 8:00 pm: does this include medical marijuana - ToughGuy - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 9:43 pm: Yes. Just ban on campuses. Nothing like walking outside a building at a school and seeing hundreds of butts on the ground not to mention the health problems smoking causes. Some people find fault with anything that is an attempt to do something good. Deal with it folks. - county chairman - Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 10:22 pm: i would assume that if you see hundreds of cig butts outside a building that the majority should rule i dont smoke so either way i see both sides their are alcohlics why dont we ban drinking oh i forgot that didnt work i see a lot of beer cans on the road i live by Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.