You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Thu, May 9, 2013 : 1:42 p.m.

Majority on University of Michigan's campus support smoking ban

By Kellie Woodhouse


U-M facilities, grounds and buildings went smoke free July 1, 2011.

Daniel Brenner I

Two years after banning smoking on campus, cigarettes are apparently losing their popularity on University of Michigan's campus.

The Michigan Daily reports that a survey of 2,022 students and 2,405 faculty and staff, conducted by U-M officials, found that most respondents supported the ban.

U-M facilities, grounds and buildings went smoke free July 1, 2011.

According to the survey, 82.7 percent of students and 88.8 percent of faculty and staff said they supported a smoke-free campus. Seventy-two percent of faculty and 65 percent of students said they noticed a decrease in smoking on campus over the past two years.

Read the full Daily article.

Kellie Woodhouse covers higher education for Reach her at or 734-623-4602 and follow her on twitter.


A A Resident

Fri, May 10, 2013 : 10:53 a.m.

It's odd to see the U of M so blatantly discriminating against a minority.

Kai Petainen

Fri, May 10, 2013 : 4:56 a.m.

Question. Are e-cigarettes banned as well? Where does U of M and Johnson and Johnson stand on the issue?


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 4:19 a.m.

As a former smoker, I say let the people smoke. No matter how far removed I am from my want to ever pick up a cigarette again, I'll still never understand the disdain. The stigma against smokers, especially when they're doing so legally and outside, is pure overdramatized, irrational insanity. I could go on, but someone who thinks the world revolves around them will reply with some absurd statement, so what's the point.


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 10:46 a.m.

No one is allergic to smoke! Allergy is a specific medical condition and not every person who thinks they have an adverse reaction to smoke is allergic. Some people are "allergic" to perfume. It SMELLS. Does that give me the right to ban perfume?


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 7:52 a.m.

Um, because first and foremost it's the SMELL. And many people are allergic to the smoke. And it's because you are a former smoker, that's right.

Tom Todd

Fri, May 10, 2013 : 2:18 a.m.

America is dead


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 11:37 a.m.

Doors to the north and south. Buh-bye.


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 1:01 a.m.

"Majority on University of Michigan's campus support smoking ban".....except pot...........

Homeland Conspiracy

Fri, May 10, 2013 : 12:32 a.m.

In a country that is always saying how We all LOVE freedom...why are so many things being banned? "The Land Of The Free" NOT!

Tom Joad

Fri, May 10, 2013 : 12:01 a.m.

If only smoking were banned on sidewalks. You paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes "your right to smoke ends at the beginning of my nose." Why do non-smokers have to be subjected to a gauntlet of second-hand cigarette smoke? Nearly every bar has a bunch of smokers outside, and people routinely walk down the sidewalk smoking cigarettes leaving noxious smoke in their wake.

martini man

Thu, May 9, 2013 : 11:18 p.m.

Next will be large bottles of soda pop ,fattening foods, and whatever the liberals can come up with . Mayor Goonburg aint got nothin' on A2 .


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 2:10 a.m.

I don't smoke, I was raised in a family where both my parents smoked 2-3 packs a day and have had no adverse effects from that exposure. I know, one annecdotal account hardly suffices as evidence. But if smoking is so bad, why not outlaw it all together? You know the answer, the black market and more importantly, the state doesn't want to give up the taxes they pull in. Frankly, I think the hysteria about smoking is much overblown. If you think smoking outside of a building is going to endanger someone's health you really need your collective heads examined.

Homeland Conspiracy

Fri, May 10, 2013 : 12:34 a.m.

Oh that's right ONLY liberals ban things....What color is the sky in your world?


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 12:33 a.m.

"Next will be large bottles of soda pop ,fattening foods, and whatever the liberals can come up with ." I agree that people should be allowed to win a Darwin award at their own discretion, but a policy like this deals with externalities: e.g., second hand smoke. In other words, people should be able to consume anything they want if it doesn't impact others. I'd be delighted to see you take up heroin, if you can guarantee you won't steal to pay for it and won't operate a motor vehicle under the influence...or wont' create any other unpriced externalities. Your comment about pop and fast food and the control thereof certainly sounds like a bad thing, but I would be interested in your take on insurance policies nationally: yes, I will concede your right to eat and drink as you wish, but would also like to risk price that by putting you into a different insurance pool. Are you OK with that idea? In other words, despite your incredibly amusing locution re: the mayor of New York (yes, many a 5 year old giggled at that one), with a national/global epidemic of diabetes in the offing, your thought process doesn't seem to consider some of the attendant complexities. If I'm wrong, please explain how you would risk manage the cost of diabetes and heart disease consistent with allowing maximum personal liberty without impairing the broader commonweal?


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 12:08 a.m.



Fri, May 10, 2013 : 12:08 a.m.

Unless you can figure out how someone else drinking a soda has any impact on my health, than they aren't comparable at all.


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 10:02 p.m.

it's not really a huge deal. plenty of smokers work quite happily at U-M including myself. because most U-M buildings are sited next to at least one public street, all you need to do is walk a few steps to the nearest sidewalk and go to town (since the roads and sidewalks are City property, the rule doesn't apply there). i think the only real impact is you can no longer smoke while walking through the Diag on Central or North, which is probably more an irritation to students than it is faculty and staff. glad i finished up as a student before the policy went into effect!


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 11:07 a.m.

Yesterday as we were leaving the University Hospital at about 2:00 p.m. there were about 8-10 individuals standing across the street from the Hospital entrance enjoying their smokes. I don't care if someone smokes, it's their health, but to have it so obvious at one of the country's major health centers doesn't seem appropriate.


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 7:52 p.m.

This is a really misleading survey because probably less than 10% of the people surveyed smoke. It may be even less than that because of how the surveyors selected their sample. So most of the people in the survey don't have a dog in this fight. Why did the university even bother taking the survey? It is just about justifying President Coleman's initiative. It is also not about getting people to quit but it is really about discouraging smokers from applying for jobs at UM in the first place. should also post the survey questions because a survey can be severely skewed by how you word the question. Kellie why don't you just post the University's press release rather than calling this reporting?


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 12:07 a.m.

I also think a huge issue was the smoke breaks that many people thought they were entitled to. That's not why they passed this, but it's an indirect positive that came out of it.

Angry Moderate

Thu, May 9, 2013 : 10:59 p.m.

Why on earth would smokers be the only people with a dog in this fight? All of us who are tired of you blowing disgusting, smelly, cancerous fumes in our faces at the entrance to every building and littering your butts everywhere have a dog in this fight.


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 10:48 p.m.

I am sorry that I missed the link to the Daily article but the criticism still stands that it is virtually a forgone conclusion that if you survey people who don't smoke you will find a majority who favor the policy. The result is meaningless and not newsworthy.

Kellie Woodhouse

Thu, May 9, 2013 : 9:54 p.m.

It's an aggregation of an article from the Daily. I didn't see a press release on this, but I might have missed it....


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 7:10 p.m.

Who cares? Seriously, "Tyranny of the Majority" anyone? A higher percentage supported the war in Iraq/Afghanistan.... that means it was a good idea, right? /s

Nicholas Urfe

Fri, May 10, 2013 : 1:18 a.m.

Second hand smoke, anyone? Cancer anyone? Stinky clothes and hair, anyone? Pardon me, do you mind if I fart here? I assure you the smell will not linger as long as a cigarette would.


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 7:33 p.m.

The survey results convey the level of satisfaction among the students, faculty and staff with the smoking ban, not with a judgment that it is a moral good. You can't deny the former point; you can argue the latter if you'd like (though I wouldn't). You are confusing the two.


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 7:08 p.m.

That's cool. Vaporizing and e-cigs are all the rage now....and you can do that indoors all you want even. It's also INSANELY more healthy for you. Nicotine is NOT a carcinogen's all the bad things generated by COMBUSTION that are carcinogens.


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 12:47 p.m.

We know it isn't, that was not his point. Nicotine not being a carcinogen doesn't mean there aren't other good reasons not to use it.


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 12:47 a.m.

Look it up...Nicotine is not a carcinogen...


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 12:23 a.m.

"Nicotine is NOT a carcinogen's all the bad things generated by COMBUSTION that are carcinogens." Yes, and gravity has never killed anybody, it is only the sudden change in acceleration.

Irwin Daniels

Thu, May 9, 2013 : 7:03 p.m.

If anything I think that smoking on campus is now worse than before. This is a "rule" that can't be enforced and won't be enforced. Everyday getting to the School of Ed. I walk by the same smokers every day (at about noon it is really bad).


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 8:46 p.m.

The policy is really about the University saving money on healthcare costs. UM is self insured with regard to healthcare cost so if it can have less utilization, particularly during their working years, it will save the University money. Most of the people who are likely to quit, have already quit under the old policy, so it is not about motivating current employees to quit but rather it is about discouraging people who smoke from even applying for a job at UM.