This was new to me today (mainly because I have been working a lot at home lately): as this flyer taped to the window indicates, there’s a “Entrance Pilot” program at Pray-Harrold right now to enforce a no smoking zone entrance.
My pictures are not that great here for giving perspective, but the zone includes a sign by the trees kind of in the “square” of the southeast entrance area, and this red “line in the sand” (or paint on the pavement).
On the one hand, I applaud the effort. But how come these same rules don’t appear to be in place at the northeast entrance of the building, the one that is nearest to the College of Education and far busier than this entrance? I mean, having this southeast entrance a non-smoking zone and the northeast entrance a smoking zone is kind of like being in a restaurant and being sat right on the borderline between the smoking and non-smoking sections. (Oh, and when is Michigan going to join radical states like North Carolina and ban smoking in restaurants and bars, anyway?)
I agree with you. The selection of this entrance may be arbitrary. The only logic that makes sense is that this is the handicapped and key-card entrance I just wonder if this will make people feel more ENTITLED to continue to smoke right outside the other entrances, and if people will start to ignore these posted signs like they have all of the others? What is the administration perpared to do to enforce this pilot, since the policy doesn’t ever seemed to have been enforced anywhere on campus since its institution in the late 80′s (in different iterations, of course)? It will be interesting to observe if they are willing to put any “muscle” behind the spray paint and signs. .
Perhaps this entry was chosen because it houses the automatic door button and the key-card entry. I simply hope that this action will not encourage people to smoke at the other entrances. I supposed that in time, these posted signs may be ignored as the others have been.
I understand the Tobacco Policy has been in effect since before 1990. It doesn’t appear that it has been enforced in recent years. Has it ever been successful?
I will be curious to see what administration will do to ensure this new policy is followed, or if it will be another empty basket. There appears to be means to provide consequence to those who break the older policy. Do you know why they do not simply use those rules?
Just a couple of thoughts. I remember when one of my profs in Strong Hall smoked during class (many years ago) and just outside the west door there were dozens, if not hundreds of butts that he threw on the ground. Also, Casey’s Bar in A2 went smokeless a few years ago. The place lost about a 1/3 of its business for a while, then business returned to normal once the non-smokers found out. The place is cleaner and healthier for patrons and employees.
I don’t really understand how this is a “pilot” program. The policy already states no smoking with in 25 feet of entrances and air intakes. I would view this as some sort of enforcement given the new signs and the red line of doom.
Totally off the subject but the Oct. 26th issue of Crain’s Business has a large article on philanthropy and lists several capital campaigns. EMU was listed as having raised $30,000,000 in the silent part of its capital campaign to raise between $50 – $60 million. In addition, there was a blurb about the indoor practice facility and the University was drawing up plans for an $80 million dollar Art/Technology Village.
Maybe a new thread here is the link: http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20091021/GEO01/310219991