Milford Schools Smoking Ban Aimed at Adults

The proposed policy would update the language of the current no smoking rule, which was adopted in 1999.


At Monday night's Board of Education meeting, Milford Public Schools Superintendent Dr. Elizabeth Feser presented a proposal prepared by which suggests revisions to the school's current ban on smoking.

Dr. Feser noted that Milford Schools' present policy only prohibits smoking "while school is in session."

"We want to create complete smoke-free environments," said Dr. Feser.

Specific Updates to Policy

Feser emphasized that the updated policy would focus on adults.

The language of the proposal is fairly thorough:

Employees of the Milford Board of Education and all other adults are prohibited from smoking at any time in school buildings, on school property, on school buses, vans, or any school-provided transportation, or at any school-sponsored activity. Smoking is also prohibited at any time in any offices assigned to, or any areas used by Board of Education personnel, and at public meetings held under the auspices of the Board of Education.

Policy Enforcement

Board of Education member Susan Glennon asked who would enforce this policy at a sporting event.

Dr. Feser responded that there would be signs posted and hopefully "peer pressure" amongst adults.

BOE member Dora Kubek proposed adding e-cigarettes to the ban.

The legal reference for the policy is Connecticut General Statute 19a-342: "Smoking prohibited in certain places. Signs required. Penalties."

Do you think that parents should be allowed to smoke at school events? Or is this policy important for the safety of everyone involved? Vote in our poll.

YankOutWest August 15, 2012 at 05:41 PM
I have to take issue with Mr. Goldwyn's opinion that smoking is "a privilege granted with strict rules". Seriously - a privilege granted? By whom? By you? While I am glad to see the numbers of people smoking dropping, I get very annoyed at the holier-than-thou crowd (usually comprised of ex-smokers) who have decided that they now, in their status as born again health nuts, have the right to dictate what everyone else does in all places and all times of the day or night. I would not be surprised to see a comment from Mr. Goldwyn or his ilk in the future declaring that it should be illegal for someone to smoke outside on one's own property.
RONALD M GOLDWYN August 15, 2012 at 07:34 PM
Dear Yank, My mother died of lung cancer after fighting it for 17 years. This woman never smoked even one puff on a cigarette. Now I will fight to save the life of idiots who don't know better or childrn who are too young to know better. My effort will go as far as your family who live in your back yard so that in your ignorance you don't pollute their lungs. I believe you have the right to kill yourself, but that right does not allow you to take others with you.
CuriousOrange August 15, 2012 at 09:17 PM
You can't legally burn garbage in your back yard. Why should you be allowed to burn garbage on your property just because you call it a cigarette, cigar, or pipe?
J Christine August 16, 2012 at 03:56 PM
Yes to all of your comments. I am a grown, tax paying, woman and will not be told or dictated to about where I can or cannot smoke outdoors. I have had it with the hypocrisy of smoking laws and the anit smoking crusade in general. I am tired of being treated like some pariah but yet go onto social media sites such as Facebook and every other post is about "needing a glass of wine" or "going out for cocktails". I have every right in the world to smoke a cigarette outdoors whenever I please and will continue to do so regardless of whether people like Mr. Goldwyn like it or not. Frankly, I think alcohol is a much more abused and dangerous drug but because everyone loves to drink no one says anything about this, only smokers get the wrath because some don't like the smell. Oh well, I don't like being T-boned by a drunk driver, nor do I like watching families get ripped apart by alcohol abuse. But smoking is so much more important, right...
J Christine August 16, 2012 at 03:57 PM
Should we ban cars also because exhausts drifts?
RONALD M GOLDWYN August 16, 2012 at 04:34 PM
Dear Ms Christine, A US Supreme Court Justice once said that "your freedom ends where my nose begins." This means that you may smoke providing that smoke does not interfere with another individual's right to remain in a smoke free environment. You as a citizen will obey the laws of our country or be prepared to pay the penalty for its violation. You chose to become a smoker, just as I did back in the 50's. back then the risks of smoking were hidden from the public by the tabbaco companies. Back then we didn't have seatbelts in cars, helmets for bicycle riders, or hands free cellphones You WILL observe the laws that have been created for societies benefit, and if you and your fellow smokers continue to violate our laws, the next step will be the banning the sale of tobacco products. Right now we only high tax the sale. Ms. Christine, Our laws constantly have changed, not always for the better, I gave up smoking by being educated. I saw my mother-in law die gasping for her last breath due to her refusal to stop smoking. May you see the light before you suffer a similar fate..
Eileen August 16, 2012 at 04:57 PM
@ Ronald and Curious... Sorry, it is one's own property and NO ONE has the right to dictate what one may, or may not, do there. And your equating burning garbage with smoking "a" cigarette? Reaching just a little? You know, you folks like you are the first to cry foul when your "rights" are trampled, but seem to have no problem infringing on others rights.
Eileen August 16, 2012 at 05:00 PM
" why can we not abstain from lighting up at a student event? Is it really that hard?" If you have to ask that, then you're not an "ex-smoker".....
Eileen August 16, 2012 at 05:03 PM
"You as a citizen will obey the laws of our country or be prepared to pay the penalty for its violation. " "You WILL observe the laws that have been created for societies benefit" Add a German accent to that and it faintly reminds me of a certain German dictator.....
Eileen August 16, 2012 at 05:04 PM
BTW, Ronald, you seem to be over weight. Has anyone spoken to you about the dangers of obesity????
Amy August 16, 2012 at 05:57 PM
I hate smelling tobacco smoke, but at least it dissipates. What about all the cigarette butts left EVERYWHERE? That's really disgusting, especially when they're left all over where kids are playing. If you are so addicted to cigarettes that you can't abstain for a couple of hours, then you have a real problem. My mother smoked from the time she was 14 til she was in her late fifties and was diagnosed with COPD. She quit cold turkey that day and lived for 20 more years.
RONALD M GOLDWYN August 17, 2012 at 02:00 AM
Eileen, Thank-you for your comment. I want to lose a bit of weight but my endocrinologist says no to weight loss. I will follow his advise. Amy Besides Diabetes, and a heart condition, I also have COPD and will be 75 this year. I stopped smoking when I had triple bypass surgery over twenty years ago. I can only give sage advice, You smokers should take advantage of it.
J Christine August 17, 2012 at 10:35 AM
Sorry but I disagree. Retail employee's have a right to smoke on their breaks. Why is everyone always trying to take the simple pleasures from someone's life? And please don't use the second hand smoke argument. Smelling smoke near an exit door isn't going to give you cancer anymore then smelling exhaust on a city road will .I can understand not standing directly outside the door and do think that employee's should oblige . I am a smoker and always try to have courtesy and move away from the door 20ft but banning it altogether is just nonsense.
J Christine August 17, 2012 at 10:50 AM
Go back and read your comments but put a foreign accent on it and this is what you sound like. I really don't care what the a Supreme Court Justice once said in regards to this. Typical nonsmoker attacking smokers because he'she doesn't like it. I will smoke wherever and whenever I please while still trying to maintain courtesy for others. I am not a jerk. I do not run around blowing smoke in others faces. I always try to be courteous and think of others (non smokers). But your stance is going to far. You do not have the right, because you don't like something, to run around with your dictator stance yelling at others. Do you report people that exceed the speed limit? Do you report people who don't wear seat belts? Do you flag down cops when someone doesn't come to a 3 second stop before the white line at a Stop Sign? No you don't because no one, including you, follows every law in this country, it would be impossible to do and you most likely break 5 laws before breakfast so please do not try to be the moral crusade for others. Ban cigarrettes? Yes because that worked SO WELL for illegal drugs, didn't it? My Grandmother, grandfather, other grandfather, Aunt, step grandfather and 4 friends have died from cancer so it happens in all familys. My grandmother died from lung cancer without ever smoking or being near smoke her entire life. Being away from smoke does NOT sheild you from any cancers. YOU just don't like it personally.
J Christine August 17, 2012 at 10:52 AM
You are not giving advice. You are demanding that people follow what you feel is appropriate because you personally have a problem with it. Just because it worked for you, doesn't mean that others need to follow it and just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's wrong for others to enjoy.
J Christine August 17, 2012 at 10:55 AM
Amy, I agree about the cigarette butts. Although I am a heavy smoker, I never throw cigarettes on the ground. I snuff them out and either put them in a garbage can or if none is availiable I put them in my purse or pocket until I can dispose of them properly. No smoker needs to throw things all over the ground. It's unacceptable. My car didn't come with an ashtray so I bought my own. It's not hard to be responsible.
RONALD M GOLDWYN August 17, 2012 at 12:13 PM
Ms Christine, I understand that you have no desire to give up smoking. You are now in the minority of our society that continues to smoke in light of all the scientific facts that show that tobacco is harmful to those who come in contact with it. You appear to one who is blind to the facts because you will not see, and I'm sorry for you. Based on your family history, you have the greatest opportunity to die from cancer at an early age. Death by cancer is horrible, but to desire to die by that method is idiotic. I will not allow you your pleasure it by doing so you pollute the air in which senior citizens like myself or children live in. We don't know what the safe distance is. It could be 20 feet or a greater amount so to be safe we say no smoking in our atmosphere. Do like I did and find a substitute such as sugar free candy.
Big Boy August 17, 2012 at 01:45 PM
This is why I love my dog!!!
JE August 17, 2012 at 08:42 PM
Touche. Wish there was a like button.
sdfsdf August 18, 2012 at 12:49 PM
dirty smokers
Robert S August 18, 2012 at 01:41 PM
I never was a smoker. The secondary smoke argument is a hoax revealed especially by the fact that it is put forth as being more harmful than actually doing the smoking ("primary smoke"?). Exposed! Everyone knows that smokers ALSO breathe in secondary smoke in the most heavy concentrations. If there were truly a scientific cause & effect relationship between secondary smoke and cancer, it would always happen. My father smoked and quit when almost retired. His lungs became pink, and he finally died of pancreatic cancer. My grandfather smoked until his death in old age, and his lungs were especially fine, and he died of something unrelated. Some could get lung cancer from smoking a year, others can get lung cancer without even secondary cigarette smoke. Each of us has his tolerances and weaknesses for exposures to the multitude of things we come into contact with even invisibly. Car exhaust? Campfires and the various wood placed within? Grills and lighter fluid? The smell of gasoline at the pump? The smell of furnace oil in our house? The lawmakers are abusing their office consistently adding more and more restrictive laws, trying to make themselves look like do-gooders to deserve their salary & pensions at the expense of everyone's freedoms. Don't be surprised if you will eventually need a license to step off of your own property. Maybe we can all be chained to a chair and forced to eat healthy food by the government, then we can have no more troubles, living to a ripe old age?
CuriousOrange August 18, 2012 at 01:53 PM
Second-hand smoke is obnoxious. The air pollution by mall exits proves that smoke-addicts don't give a damn about anyone else's comfort while they puff away like cows chewing their cud -- except that smoking is unnatural and unhealthy.
Robert S August 18, 2012 at 02:56 PM
It is for the mall owners to make their policies on their own properties, not have government intrude into fixing inconveniences by making laws. Just like with some restaurants forbidding shorts, or even enforcing formal wear, to be able to be on the property, private owners everywhere make their policies, and if they not be good, they will feel it in their own finances and alter accordingly. That's freedom at work. Smoking is unnatural and unhealthy and I urge people to stop, but big government and intrusive laws are not the solution. It's a monster in creation, and the bigger it gets, the more sorry we will be.
CuriousOrange August 19, 2012 at 02:07 PM
If a government health department can enforce health standards in the back of a restaurant, it can surely set standards for air pollution by the front door.
Michael J. McFadden August 26, 2012 at 10:05 AM
Mr. Goldwyn, care to cite a study showing that your health is being "destroyed" by anyone's "thirdhand smoke" ? Go ahead... look around for one if you like -- there aren't any. You also say "if you and your fellow smokers continue to violate our laws, the next step will be the banning the sale of tobacco products." Really? You don't keep up too well with the news, do you? Last time a state ban was proposed in one of the Dakotas the antismoking organizations themselves lined up to scream against it. They survive on the taxes and their paychecks and grants are all that most of them seem to care about. But as with the study search, go ahead and try to sign them up to support a total ban on sales: see how far you get and let us know.
RONALD M GOLDWYN August 26, 2012 at 12:26 PM
Many years ago I was a smoker and the cigarette companies hid the dangers of smoking from the public. Then my two kids put Non-Smokers Bill of Rights signs on their bedrooms doors and I stopped smoking in my home. At the next new years eve I vowed never to bum another cigarette from another and from that time forward no cigarette product has entered my mouth. I went from a defender of cigarette smoking to a crusader against smoking. Even If I can't convince the remaining idiot smokers, I can at least work to make life harder for them to enjoy cancer nails. I do so to protect their children and other loved ones. I do so, so that my air is not polluted. I recently learned that I have COPD. There is no cure for it, yet I stopped my 1/2 pack habit over 30 years ago. Mr McFadden, Time is now on the side of non-smokers, with or without clinical trials. It is now my faith that substitutes for proof. It is what I believe and not what I can prove that puts me in with the majority point of view. I may not live to see a tobacco free world, but I am seeing that trend. I do wish you good health.
Michael J. McFadden August 26, 2012 at 01:02 PM
Thank you for an honest and polite answer Mr. Goldwyn. And of course there is no arguing with faith, although I'll do my best to get the science out there to those interested in looking at it. I think you're doing a very wrong thing though when you say you want to "at least work to make life harder for them to enjoy cancer nails. I do so to protect their children and other loved ones. I do so, so that my air is not polluted." You are subtracting from their lives by making it harder for them to enjoy what they enjoy. You can console yourself by saying "Maybe I'll help make them miserable enough that some of them will change their behavior and maybe that will help some of that portion live longer." But meanwhile all you've done for the rest of them is hurt their lives. Their families and children are not generally in need of "protection" -- the risk they incur from having a smoker in the house is probably far less than the risk they incur from having a driver in the house, having a pool in their back yard, or having video games on their computers. Remember, even according to the EPA a wife's lifetime exposure to her husband's smoking only gives her one extra chance in a thousand of lung cancer (and I could present some very good arguments as to why even THAT is greatly exaggerated. And the huge 1998 WHO study had only ONE scientifically significant finding: Children of smokers got 22% *LESS* lung cancer as adults. {continued...}
Michael J. McFadden August 26, 2012 at 01:11 PM
{Sorry about continuing... I usually don't think multi-posting is very polite...} But... I wanted to add one more thing: You say you work against smoking so your "air is not polluted." You'd be far better off working against cars. A driver in a single day pollutes as much or more than a smoker in an entire year. Read my short bio at: http://antibrains.com/author.html and you'll see that I used to be like you: I felt I had a right to make driving as difficult and expensive as possible, and a right to vilify drivers as murderers and encourage societal actions and penalties against them to make them conform to my world view of what was right and good for me and for "the children." I was wrong: I don't have such right to make that decision for others other than perhaps in some fairly superficial regulatory ways to control extreme situations and perhaps to perform what might be considered the mildest of "nudges." A $5/gallon tax added to the price of gasoline would go a long way toward cleaning our air and saving the children whose bodies are ripped up daily by Detroit's Death Machines... but I no longer subscribe to actively pushing such policies and images to that extent. - MJM
Eileen August 27, 2012 at 01:17 PM
@ Ed P " your "endocrinologist says no to weight loss".... my coffee just shot out my nose." LOL..almost lost my coffee! Too funny.....
Gary Tobin December 01, 2012 at 03:48 PM
I enjoyed reading everyone's point of view. My thoughts, If you smoke and don't know it's not good for you, you live in a cave. If you smoke and are not considerate of others, shame on you. No one is going to change their selfishness. If the smell of cigarettes and smoke bothers you when walking into a building, I feel for you because it bothers me too. Additionally, the smell of chinese food and sea food bothers me just as much. I'll get back to the original question, should adults be banned from smoking at Milford school events? No Adults that smoke will attend the required school events or not attend school events at all. Right now the smoking adult can go outside and have a cigarette and return to the event. I do support a buffer area, example: a 30-40 foot buffer area at the door ways of all buildings that are marked no smoking area. GPT


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something