CAMPUS SMOKING BANS SPARKS CONTROVERSY

Various people who advocate antismoking has been working for roughly a decade to push a smoking ban through PA's legislature in educational campuses. A closer look, however, reveals that affect may be more complex than it first appears. Consider your attitude toward ice cream. You may like ice cream because it tastes good but also dislike ice cream because that great taste comes at the expense of vast amounts of fat, sugar, and calories. If so, you would have what social psychologists call an ambivalent attitude toward ice cream. That is, you feel good and bad about it, rather than simply good or bad. Many people are ambivalent not only about unhealthy foods but about broccoli and other healthy foods as well. Similarly, many people are ambivalent about such unhealthy behaviors as smoking, as well as such healthy behaviors as exercising. As people who describe themselves as having love/hate relationships know, other people can also be a common source of ambivalence. For instance, many people are ambivalent about U.S. president's account Clinton or George Bush. Perhaps people feel ambivalent about politicians because they feel ambivalent about the social issues that politicians debate. In addition to disagreeing with each over such troubling issues as legalized abortion, capital punishment, and civil rights, people often disagree with themselves. (Thompson, 201)

Some educational/awareness programs are generically aimed at preventing all types of crime and delinquency and promoting sensitivity toward crime victims. Others target specific behaviors, such as joining gangs or taking drugs (see the DARE entry). Most teach healthy alternative responses to anger and conflict as a way of avoiding fights, retaliation, and self-destructive behavior. Some educational efforts directly address not delinquency but behaviors that are thought to be related to or risk indicators for future delinquency, such as dropping out of school, teen pregnancy, and smoking.

Until Philadelphia led the way the PA ban ran into a solid roadblock, but once Philly crumbled the resistance softened con-side ably. The hardliners who wanted a ban everywhere were very resistant to the idea of allowing exemptions and the mid-stators who were furious at the idea of government barreling into their small bars and private clubs were adamant in blocking anything that didn't exempt them or that allowed Philadelphia to play by different rules, either harder or softer.

When the last ballot came up after months of Conference managing group juggling between hard and supple ban versions, the Senate voted it down. Theoretically that should have been the end of the story. The game was played. The game was over. The banners lost and it was time for them to choose up their globes and bats and proceed home. Unfortunately Antismoker doesn't play by the normal rules of law. They didn't like the outcome so the Senate had a “Do-Over” ballot a week subsequent and passed the ban. (Protester, 147)

Smoking is banned in most inside positions with employees and in any liquor-licensed position that did not file for an exemption. Ironically, *ANY* liquor permitted position ...