The Battle Has Been Won

UCDCritic

I'm delighted to see the area in front of the Arts cafe clear of smokers and being replaced by some nice potted plants.

Finally we can all walk through that area without being assaulted by the bad habit of smokers.

It took a while to, put right what once went wrong.

meathawk

I find it morally reprehensible that those afflicted by a severe allergies to both the process of photosynthesis and fresh oxygen will be forced to use alternate entrances to the arts building because of these new potted plants.

Plants out!

RayM

The guy making the constant announcements must get tired though.

A bit like that man who sits in the luggage compartment on coaches, constantly repeating "Stand clear, luggage doors operating".

UCDCritic

I'm fist pumping with delightment

Heikki

UCDCritic wrote: »

I'm delighted to see the area in front of the Arts cafe clear of smokers and being replaced by some nice potted plants.

Finally we can all walk through that area without being assaulted by the bad habit of smokers.

It took a while to, put right what once went wrong.

What? Yesterday I had a face of smoke as I approaced the steps..

Mr.Saturn

I'm actually surprised how quickly and effectively it worked, haven't seen a single straggler.

OneOfThem Stumbled

This whole conflagration about smoking has been a consequence of a lack of courtesy all round by various minorities: the smokers who think it's acceptable to smoke in an enclosed entrance, the administrators who think it's acceptable to not build a single smoking shelter since the 2004 smoking ban, and the normal student population who think it's acceptable to force smokers off-campus. While it's certainly better that the front of JHN is no longer clogged with smoke, it hardly merits fist-pumping... in isolation, at least.

Kiltennel

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

This whole conflagration about smoking has been a consequence of a lack of courtesy all round by various minorities: the smokers who think it's acceptable to smoke in an enclosed entrance, the administrators who think it's acceptable to not build a single smoking shelter since the 2004 smoking ban, and the normal student population who think it's acceptable to force smokers off-campus. While it's certainly better that the front of JHN is no longer clogged with smoke, it hardly merits fist-pumping... in isolation, at least.

I've always thought the gravel patch between Newman and Tierney building would be a good location for a smoking shelter. Could easily build something nice, leave the remaining gravel around it and have it fit into walkway area rather than some of these stupid plastic shelters seen in other places. People are going to smoke whether we like it or not, provide them with a decent area near a major building where they wont be blowing smoke in the faces of others and it wont such an issue.

RayM

Kiltennel wrote: »

I've always thought the gravel patch between Newman and Tierney building would be a good location for a smoking shelter. Could easily build something nice, leave the remaining gravel around it and have it fit into walkway area rather than some of these stupid plastic shelters seen in other places. People are going to smoke whether we like it or not, provide them with a decent area near a major building where they wont be blowing smoke in the faces of others and it wont such an issue.

I think the days of funding that type of facility for nicotine addicts are probably over. Rather than actively encouraging smoking, it would probably make more sense if addicts were provided with various inexpensive alternative methods of ingesting nicotine while on campus (patches, chewing gum, etc).

Kiltennel

RayM wrote: »

I think the days of funding that type of facility for nicotine addicts are probably over. Rather than actively encouraging smoking, it would probably make more sense if addicts were provided with various inexpensive alternative methods of ingesting nicotine while on campus (patches, chewing gum, etc).

True. I wouldn't so much consider it encouragement, more so containing it to a particular area out of people's way. Are patches and chewing gum actually that cheap? UCD has a large student body, providing free nicotine addiction products could turn expensive.

RayM

Kiltennel wrote: »

True. I wouldn't so much consider it encouragement, more so containing it to a particular area out of people's way. Are patches and chewing gum actually that cheap? UCD has a large student body, providing free nicotine addiction products could turn expensive.

I'm not sure whether they're more or less expensive than packets of cigarettes, but if they could be sold at a reduced price, they might be a better alternative to providing smoking areas. Also, if the sale of tobacco products is banned on campus, it would probably be a good idea to offer alternatives.

Riamfada

Perhaps a campaign encouraging people to quit smoking along with the ban on selling tobacco on campus would be wise. Rather than just stopping selling cigarettes. Usual half arsed attempt and waste of a good opportunity to make a difference.

UCDCritic

Riamfada wrote: »

Perhaps a campaign encouraging people to quit smoking along with the ban on selling tobacco on campus would be wise. Rather than just stopping selling cigarettes. Usual half arsed attempt and waste of a good opportunity to make a difference.

You can always rely on the SU to waste a good opportunity

kilrush

this ban has nothing to do with the SU and they have better things to do with their time than wasting time on people who were stupid enough to start up a habit that everyone has known is bad for you since before most students were born.

Riamfada

kilrush wrote: »

this ban has nothing to do with the SU and they have better things to do with their time than wasting time on people who were stupid enough to start up a habit that everyone has known is bad for you since before most students were born.

Fairly ignorant comment. I suppose your mister perfect? Also the SU have nothing better to be doing. They are, for the most part, a waste of space.

kilrush

Riamfada wrote: »

Fairly ignorant comment. I suppose your mister perfect?

No of course not. I was tired and being stupid. I'm getting fed up of UCDCritic coming on here to criticise things but not attempting to actually do anything about it. I'm aware that calling all smokers stupid is a generalisation and that stress or other reasons cause people to take it up and I'm sorry I said that. But its about as ignorant as the sweeping statements about the union made here.

kilrush

Riamfada wrote: »

Also the SU have nothing better to be doing. They are, for the most part, a waste of space.

This part wasn't here when i started my reply but to be honest this isn't true at all. Go shadow any one of union officers for a day and tell me they are doing nothing better.

errlloyd

Riamfada wrote: »

Fairly ignorant comment. I suppose your mister perfect? Also the SU have nothing better to be doing. They are, for the most part, a waste of space.

The SU had almost no control over the smoking ban - I believe by the time the referendum came down every other voter on the relevant authority was voting for it, so the SU put it down to a referendum.

Because of that I can see why they'd be reluctant to run a campaign - they don't really want to be associated with the ban because it'll just make a decent portion of the student body resent them.

Furthermore while the SU do provide some health campaigns, it is actually 100% not their job. It is something the university should be doing and the university should be paying for.

UCDCritic

kilrush wrote: »

I'm getting fed up of UCDCritic coming on here to criticise things but not attempting to actually do anything about it.

Excuse You!

I am single handedly responsible for clearing the smokers out from the front of the Arts cafe.

I was the only one to initiated an effort to do something about that situation and it was because of that effort you can now walk through that area without being choked by smoke.

Criticism is a healthy thing. It helps us to realize how we can make things better and I think that is really what we all strive for in life.

It's only immature people who take it the wrong way.

And if you're upset by my last sentence, stop being immature.

beardedmaster

Most critics evaluate the merit of something by pointing out both the good and bad qualities of it.

kilrush

UCDCritic wrote: »

Excuse You!

I am single handedly responsible for clearing the smokers out from the front of the Arts cafe.

I was the only one to initiated an effort to do something about that situation and it was because of that effort you can now walk through that area without being choked by smoke.

Criticism is a healthy thing. It helps us to realize how we can make things better and I think that is really what we all strive for in life.

It's only immature people who take it the wrong way.

And if you're upset by my last sentence, stop being immature.

You are single handedly responsible for clearing the smokers out? Did you personally go and push them out of the area? Did you sit on the relevant committee or authority that decided to a) implement the incoming smoking ban or b) sit on the committee that paid for and placed the "lovely" new plants there?

I'm sure its nothing to do with the University gearing up to ban smoking entirely off campus and trying to not appear weak by being unable to police the one area its already banned and completely to do with one person with seemingly nothing better to do complaining about it.

Also I'm really not sure what the whole immature thing is about I'm a college student it's kind of our thing to be immature everynow and again before we go off into the big bad scary world where we dont have Critics there to protect our lungs.

UCDCritic

kilrush wrote: »

You are single handedly responsible for clearing the smokers out? Did you personally go and push them out of the area? Did you sit on the relevant committee or authority that decided to a) implement the incoming smoking ban or b) sit on the committee that paid for and placed the "lovely" new plants there?

I complained to the HSE and kept on my complaint until something was done. Everybody knows the SU has become the trained pet of the UCD authorities instead of being an opposing force for the betterment of students.

I'm quite sure nothing would have been done if the HSE didn't take action with UCD after my complaint.

My action was taken before any talk of a smoking ban.

And whatever means they used to keep smokers out of that area is not important. Nothing would have been done without someone having the will to take action. A will that is completely lacking in the selfish self serving di*k heads who only take up position in the SU to fulfill their own agendas.

kilrush wrote: »

I'm sure its nothing to do with the University gearing up to ban smoking entirely off campus and trying to not appear weak by being unable to police the one area its already banned and completely to do with one person with seemingly nothing better to do complaining about it.

For how long was that area a non smoking area? For how long did the university do nothing about it? So my action is a total coincidence? The university will fail in its smoking ban because without the pressure of an outside force to make them do something they haven't the will to make any changes.

That one area was enforceable by law which would have given the HSE powers to punish UCD for non compliance. The rest of the university is not enforced by the law so their will not be enough motivation to enforce the ban when a huge percentage of students start complaining.

They only made the change because they were forced to because of my complaint. UCD and the SU doesn't have the will or morals to make these kind of changes of their own volition.

kilrush wrote: »

Also I'm really not sure what the whole immature thing is about I'm a college student it's kind of our thing to be immature everynow and again before we go off into the big bad scary world where we dont have Critics there to protect our lungs.

No. College is the time when you stop being a kid and start being an adult in preparation for the big bad scary world. And when people do criticize you out there you take it and use it to learn from.

kilrush

UCDCritic wrote: »

I complained to the HSE and kept on my complaint until something was done. Everybody knows the SU has become the trained pet of the UCD authorities instead of being an opposing force for the betterment of students.

I'm quite sure nothing would have been done if the HSE didn't take action with UCD after my complaint.

My action was taken before any talk of a smoking ban.

And whatever means they used to keep smokers out of that area is not important. Nothing would have been done without someone having the will to take action. A will that is completely lacking in the selfish self serving di*k heads who only take up position in the SU to fulfill their own agendas.



For how long was that area a non smoking area? For how long did the university do nothing about it? So my action is a total coincidence? The university will fail in its smoking ban because without the pressure of an outside force to make them do something they haven't the will to make any changes.

That one area was enforceable by law which would have given the HSE powers to punish UCD for non compliance. The rest of the university is not enforced by the law so their will not be enough motivation to enforce the ban when a huge percentage of students start complaining.

They only made the change because they were forced to because of my complaint. UCD and the SU doesn't have the will or morals to make these kind of changes of their own volition.



No. College is the time when you stop being a kid and start being an adult in preparation for the big bad scary world. And when people do criticize you out there you take it and use it to learn from.

I personally don't think that your silly complaint to the HSE had anything to do with it at all but thats my opinion and I'm not changing it so lets leave that there.

Its been said before but you don't seem to get it so I'll say it again. The Smoking Ban has nothing to do with the Students Union nor is it within the students unions power or mandate to stop people smoking in front of arts, That is the university alone.

I have no more to do with the students union than anyone else but your constant unfounded bitterness and attacks on the union show the same immaturity you seem to despise so much.

What agenda is it that you see the current officers trying to push on the students of UCD? What self serving goal do they seek to achieve by working all hours of the day to try make UCD a better place for its students?

Like I said I'm not involved in the union so you are not criticising me. People can learn from constructive criticism if all you are saying is that they are a bunch of self serving dickheads then all I could possibly learn from that is to avoid you should we ever be unfortunate enough to meet.

UCDCritic

I'm not attacking

Nor do I constantly go on about the SU

And anything I say is founded

The people who run for su positions are doing it to boost whatever career goals the have after UCD. What this means is they wouldn't dare rock the boat and stand up to the university authorities which in my opinion is a betrayal of the office and the students

They are completely tame.

One obvious example is for years the Ents officer position was used by outside promoters who placed their employees in that position where they could steer all the students to the venues of their choice.

Why do you think that position is gone now?

You haven't a clue. Trust me, I know from experience all the extra "perks" that can come from being in any of those positions.

kilrush

UCDCritic wrote: »

I'm not attacking

Nor do I constantly go on about the SU

And anything I say is founded

The people who run for su positions are doing it to boost whatever career goals the have after UCD. What this means is they wouldn't dare rock the boat and stand up to the university authorities which in my opinion is a betrayal of the office and the students

They are completely tame.

One obvious example is for years the Ents officer position was used by outside promoters who placed their employees in that position where they could steer all the students to the venues of their choice.

Why do you think that position is gone now?

You haven't a clue. Trust me, I know from experience all the extra "perks" that can come from being in any of those positions.

Believe it or not saying that someone is a "selfish self serving di*k head" is an attack on that person.

The Ents officer position rightly or wrongly was gotten rid of almost three years ago now I asked you about the current officer and you seem to have ignored that.

I personally believe that the Ents position was gotten rid of because at the time the union were in a bad financial situation and they wanted to guarantee that someone with experience of running events for a profit could be brought in and not just whoever was most popular that year.

I'm a forth year student who is fairly involved in UCD. I've seen everything that the union officers get and I've seen the work that they do.I think they balance. If you think they do such a bad job and get such great perks run for office and make ucd a better place.

ironclaw

UCDCritic wrote: »

You haven't a clue. Trust me, I know from experience all the extra "perks" that can come from being in any of those positions.

Out of curiosity, how long have you been in UCD? Genuine question.

Indestructable

What's the story? Can't buy tobacco on campus but can buy cigarettes? Is this the case now or when will it be in place?

kilrush

Indestructable wrote: »

What's the story? Can't buy tobacco on campus but can buy cigarettes? Is this the case now or when will it be in place?

You can not buy tobacco products on Campus since the 1st of september.

Indestructable

kilrush wrote: »

You can not buy tobacco products on Campus since the 1st of september.

Thanks for the reply. Do not agree with this at all. Don't remember being asked either. Who decided this? Half measures and all that again hit the most vulnerable i.e. those who cannot afford cigarettes yet are addicted.

It's also ironic that very recently the SU spent thousands on new shops incls new tobacco dispensing machinery and then the sale is prohibited.

We are old enough now at uni to decide for ourselves if we want to buy tobacco products. Losing money seems to be a habit of the SU

kilrush

Indestructable wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. Do not agree with this at all. Don't remember being asked either. Who decided this? Half measures and all that again hit the most vulnerable i.e. those who cannot afford cigarettes yet are addicted.

It's also ironic that very recently the SU spent thousands on new shops incls new tobacco dispensing machinery and then the sale is prohibited.

We are old enough now at uni to decide for ourselves if we want to buy tobacco products. Losing money seems to be a habit of the SU

There was a referendum last year and those who bothered to vote voted in favour of banning smoking on campus. This was only really a token gesture though as the ucd health authority or whatever it is called had already decided that it wanted to ban smoking on campus completely which will happen by the end of this academic year as far as I'm aware. The SU this year is making money this year and made a small ammount of money last year!

Indestructable

kilrush wrote: »

There was a referendum last year and those who bothered to vote voted in favour of banning smoking on campus. This was only really a token gesture though as the ucd health authority or whatever it is called had already decided that it wanted to ban smoking on campus completely which will happen by the end of this academic year as far as I'm aware. The SU this year is making money this year and made a small ammount of money last year!

Ahh okay, I must admit I was not very clued in to that vote, missed it entirely really. So be it, let them nanny the college even more. I can understand the perspective of being proactive and all.

Still don't really agree with banning smoking entirely. The risks are published and so be it if people want to smoke.

Thank god for that the SU must have an atrocious amount of debt to pay off at this stage.

kilrush

Indestructable wrote: »

Ahh okay, I must admit I was not very clued in to that vote, missed it entirely really. So be it, let them nanny the college even more. I can understand the perspective of being proactive and all.

Still don't really agree with banning smoking entirely. The risks are published and so be it if people want to smoke.

Thank god for that the SU must have an atrocious amount of debt to pay off at this stage.

Yeah the smoking referendum wasn't publicised very well it took place at the same time as the abortion referendum so as you can imagine that took all the headlines.

I think they are more financially stable now to be fair. Their last released accounts for June 2013 showed a net debt of 625k. While that is a lot it is a big decrease from 1.4mill the year before so you would hope that in the June 2014 accounts which I'd imagine will be released soon will show a decrease in the debt again and in a few years they may be out of debt and be in a better state financially for the future like one would hope the irish state.

JPCN1

UCDCritic wrote: »

I'm fist pumping with delightment

Below the belt, I take it.

May it be the high point of your life.

ironclaw

I have no idea why kilrush is having to defend his position. Large, wide spread campus bans on smoking have been on the cards nationally both in public and private sector for years. I know many companies that it stretches back to the early 2000s. Look at most of the major hospitals in Dublin, many have it in place in one way or another for 18 months or more. To say UCD had no plans is nonsense and to claim one letter to the HSE changed it is absolutely laughable. I'm sorry UCDCritic, you had an input but your not solely responsible. There is far, far too much red tape both inside and outside UCD to make a difference with one letter. You probably, at most, jumped the vote up a few places on the agenda. Congrats either way, but honestly I feel you a shade naive.

Again, my question stands, how long as you in UCD? Because I figure from your posts it can't be more than 18 months.

Scuid Mhór

UCDCritic wrote:

And anything I say is founded

The people who run for su positions are doing it to boost whatever career goals the have after UCD. What this means is they wouldn't dare rock the boat and stand up to the university authorities which in my opinion is a betrayal of the office and the students

They are completely tame.

One obvious example is for years the Ents officer position [...]

generalization
dʒɛn(ə)rəlʌɪˈzeɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
noun: generalisation
a general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases.
"he was making sweeping generalizations"
the action of generalizing.
"such anecdotes cannot be a basis for generalization"

UCDCritic

ironclaw wrote: »

Out of curiosity, how long have you been in UCD? Genuine question.

Longer than old man Belfield

UCDCritic

ironclaw wrote: »

To say UCD had no plans is nonsense and to claim one letter to the HSE changed it is absolutely laughable.

You have no idea what I did as part of my complaint.

If the whole thing is a coincidence fair enough.

The truth is I'm just happy they finally did something about it.

Because of me

Riamfada

UCDCritic wrote: »

Because of me

Raphael

This has gone on long enough. If anyone wants to start a fresh thread to discuss the issue if smoking on campus and keep it reasonable then feel free, but this one is done.