Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
On Tuesday, the Student Government Association (SGA) considered a resolution on the policies proposed by Hopkins Kicks Butts that would restrict smoking on campus.
The resolution concluded that while the SGA supports efforts to promote the hazards of secondhand smoke, evidence on how these proposals would provide positive health benefits needs to be provided.
Part of the Hopkins Kicks Butts (HKB) proposal would implement a campus-wide ban on tobacco products, which would be enforced by peer-policing and a $15 ban per violation. The student organization has also called for smoking to be restricted to 50-foot zones.
"The public health objective says that smoking is harmful. What [this group] proposed is not practical," freshman class president Wyatt Larkin said.
He suggested that policymakers should determine if smoking is a threat to student health, rather than relying on the claims made by the HKB Web site, which Larkin said, "don't really add up." . . .
The SGA concluded the meeting with a motion to table the proposal until next week's meeting, which is scheduled to be in Mason Hall at 7 p.m.
Jump to full article »
SGA finally returned from its fall recess this week to debate the Hopkins Kicks Butts (HKB) proposal to ban smoking on campus . . . Wait, was it not in recess? Has it been meeting all year? . . .
Still, after this page published a condemnation of the attempted campus-wide smoking ban by HKB last week, it was nice to see a resolution debated, even if it was tabled, at this week's SGA meeting.
Unfortunately, the response came a little late to save some Hopkins events, such as Hookah and Hemp on the Beach. Their currently unpassed resolution states that "the SGA is also strongly opposed to the imposition of a fine on smoking and a ban on events that promote tobacco" citing the limiting of the "expression of rights" of other student groups as reason for their lack of support for the HKB proposal. Too little, too late.
Had SGA been more decisive at an earlier date, perhaps this event would have been saved. Instead HKB has been allowed to speak on behalf of students without an opposition voice until last week's editorial.
Hopkins Kicks Butts has been doing a lot of kicking lately. . . .
Do I think HKB is a terrorist organization? No. On the contrary, I support the majority of their actions. In fact, I believe much of what the do is laudable. Their focus on helping people quit and doing community outreach programs that try to keep kids from smoking is commendable. And I agree that students shouldn't smoke directly outside of campus buildings and they should be compassionate towards their non-smoking peers. But this is going too far. Students shouldn't be allowed to smoke indoors. But outside? Come on. Why not just send all the smokers to Gulags? . . .
If this ban goes through I will take up smoking. I will sit on The Beach and smoke. I will stand outside of the lecture halls and smoke. I will stand outside Levering and smoke. And I will not pay a single fine. I don't want to do this, but I will not sit idly by and allow you to harass these students. HKB, my life is in your hands. Do what you think is right.
Homewood is moving closer to becoming a smoke-free campus, thanks to the efforts of one student group.
Hopkins Kicks Butt (HKB) is currently attempting to convince administrators to institute a campus-wide smoking ban. Their proposal calls for a $15 fine for people caught smoking on campus.
HKB hopes to make the University completely smoke free by 2012.
The group, which is part of the Center for Health Education and Wellness (CHEW), has been gathering signatures for roughly two years, although according to group President Sarah Durica, they have "only spent about 20 hours actually tabling and getting people to sign up."
"Our primary motivation for establishing a smoke-free campus is to reduce the community's exposure to harmful secondhand smoke," HKB said in the proposal it submitted to the administration about a year ago. . . .
HKB feels that tobacco is a serious problem at Hopkins.
"The smoking problems here at Hopkins is pretty potent . . . We have letters [of complaint] from students in different housing complexes, particularly in the AMRs . . . it's a major problem definitely," Preston Kramer, HKB's Policy Chair, said.
Hopkins Kicks Butt is involved in several other campaigns beside its effort to get a campus-wide smoking ban instituted.
Earlier this year, the Baltimore County Health Department dispatched two 18-year-old police cadets to 80 local stores where cigarettes are sold. Want to guess how often the teenagers were asked to show some form of identification?
A miserable four out of 10 times.
When county officials surveyed stores close to county middle and high schools, the results weren't much better . . .
If Baltimore County wants to get serious about protecting its teens, the council will not only pass a mandatory ID regulation that meets or exceeds FDA standards, it will instruct county health officials to start enforcing existing law more aggressively. Instead of sending 18-year-olds to buy a pack of cigarettes from a local store, the county should dispatch actual minors - and issues fines to stores that sell to them.
That's what other Maryland counties do. Baltimore County may be the only jurisdiction that conducts pain-free "stings," a concession to the retail community that avoids $300 fines but which fails to adequately protect the county's youth.
On October 5, the Baltimore City Council moved two tobacco-related bills a step closer toward passage into law.
One bill would ban the sale of flavored wrapping paper for tobacco products, while the other would ban the sale of individual cigars.
The Institute for Global Tobacco Control (IGTC) at the Bloomberg School of Public Health helped collect some of the data that led to the creation of the bills, according to Doctor Frances Stillman, co-director of the IGTC.
"What we see in inner city African American populations is high rates of smoking. They don't smoke many cigarettes or cigars a day, so these individual cigarettes and cigars is a good way for them to get their nicotine dose," Stillman said.
"The flavored paper is especially attractive to youths and young adults, making it more appealing for kids to starts and young adults to keep smoking."
"Both [bills] are trying to wean youths from being enticed into smoking and flavored tobacco is trying to entice kids to smoke and kids can afford to buy individual cigarettes and cigars better than a pack," said city councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke, who represents Hopkins's district and who co-sponsored both bills.
The Baltimore County Council has deferred a proposal that would require retailers of tobacco products to ask for proof of age from "anyone who looks to be 26 or younger."
The legislation was written to make it easier for police officers to enforce the county's ban on distribution of tobacco products to those under the age of 18.
"It automatically says a retailer needs to card, and it will help us reduce teenage smoking," said Don Mohler, county spokesman.
But several council members said the regulation put too great an onus on retailers.
"If the buyer is of legal age, is the seller breaking the law by not asking for proof of age?" asked Councilman John Olszewski.
I am writing to thank The Sun for the excellent editorial "Addicted at an Early Age" (Sept. 24) and to clarify a few points. First, while it is a good move for public health for the Food and Drug Administration to ban flavored cigarettes, The Sun is correct to point out that this ban does not include the extremely popular cheap cigars that come in a variety of enticing flavors and are available by the single for less than $1. Nor does the ban include smokeless tobacco products that also come in fruity flavors attractive to kids. Although Congress did not issue such a mandate for cigars and smokeless tobacco, the FDA should swiftly exercise its regulatory power to extend the flavored ban to cigars and smokeless tobacco. . . .
And as I express my support for the city bill, I also promise to re-introduce the cigar minimum packaging bill in the General Assembly in 2010 so that we can impose this common sense public health measure across the state. Our children's health is worth at least that much!
The Baltimore City Council is considering restricting where people smoke and how they buy tobacco.
Suzanne Collins explains two bills debated Tuesday are aimed at preventing young people from smoking.
The bills' sponsors say flavored cigars and flavored cigarette papers are enticing to young people who get addicted to tobacco.
On Wednesday evening, the student organization Hopkins Kicks Butts met to discuss its proposal that the University move ashtrays away from the doorways of campus buildings in order to prevent secondhand smoke from overwhelming students on their way to classes . . .
As a private university, Hopkins certainly has the right to ban smoking on campus. But perhaps we do not need to go that far just yet.
Smokers: The News-Letter will continue to support your right to smoke on campus. In exchange, please respect the rights of non-smokers.
Why don't you voluntarily move away from the doorways while smoking? Standing there and allowing smoke to enter campus buildings and the lungs of your non-smoking peers will only ignite tensions that will ultimately result in a campus-wide ban.
And hey, while you're at it, try to quit.
Meanwhile, federal, state and local officials should also be looking at ways to keep other gateways to addiction out of youngsters' reach. Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler's push to restrict the sales of "alcopops" - sugary alcoholic beverages that are now as widely available as beer - met an inexcusable veto from Gov. Martin O'Malley in 2008. Although the governor has subsequently come around on the issue, the legislature has remained unable to enact restrictions. That should be a priority when the General Assembly returns.
Similarly, Baltimore and state officials have long struggled to restrict the single sales of so-called "little cigars" or cigarillos, products that are taxed and sold as if they were premium cigars instead of the glorified cigarettes they actually are. (The industry defines cigars and cigarillos as smokables wrapped in tobacco, whereas cigarettes are wrapped in paper. But both pose health hazards comparable to cigarettes.)
Mayor Sheila Dixon was able to enact regulations requiring vendors to sell "little cigars" in packs of five or more - an effort aimed at making them less accessible to kids attracted by their low price. But the change that would really matter - taxing them like cigarettes - has gotten nowhere in Annapolis. Lawmakers should take heart from the FDA's ruling on flavored cigarettes and try again next year. For while opponents of such restrictions may be right that adults should be able to make their own decisions about smoking (even decisions that are bad for them), that argument fails when it comes to products that, intentionally or not, are calibrated to lure vulnerable youngsters into a lifetime of addiction.
A unanimous vote by the Rockville City Council Monday night changed the city's smoking policy so that smoking is now banned 40 feet away from playgrounds at city parks. The policy change now makes Rockville one of the strictest local municipalities when it comes to restricting smoking.
Smoking is banned in restaurants, bars and nightclubs in Maryland. In Rockville, smoking also is banned at city pools, playing fields and dog parks.
No fines or penalties will be enforced as it is a change in policy, not a new law.
Rockville City playgrounds are now officially smoke free. Monday evening, the City Council unanimously ruled in favor of a new Recreation and Parks Department policy that creates a smoke free, 40-foot perimeter around all city owned playgrounds. . . .
No one opposed the smoking ban, but some residents requested broader language to include all Rockville city parks.
"We're really not asking them to go too far out of their way," said Burt Hall, Rockville's director of recreation and parks.
The city council voted Monday night to ban lighting up near playgrounds in city parks. Rockville's park advisory board had unanimously endorsed the plan, which sprang from a few complaints.
Even tighter rules may be on the way. Some residents had pushed for a total ban on smoking in parks, a concept also floated Monday by a top health official in New York City. That idea was not voted on Monday, but most on the council said they would be open to considering a broader ban later.
"We're supposed to be outdoors being healthy, not smoking or spreading secondhand smoke to others," Mayor Susan R. Hoffmann said.
Lobbyists in Annapolis collectively made $24.7 million during the six-month period that included this year's 90-day legislative session, according to figures compiled by the State Ethics Commission. . . .
The new numbers out of Maryland provide some of the firmest evidence to date that State House lobbying appears to be a largely recession-proof business. Figures from Virginia have yet to be released, but veteran lobbyists in Richmond say they noticed no significant drop-off in activity during a session that featured battles between moneyed interests over a ban on smoking in restaurants and regulations affecting payday lenders and energy companies.
"I'm not aware of any dilution," said Charles J. Davis III, whose clients in Richmond include tobacco companies and health-care interests.