Southern Brooklyn

Kingsborough To Ban Smoking Campus-Wide


The clock is ticking! There are only 215 days left for smokers to enjoy a cigarette on the Kingsborough Community College campus (2001 Oriental Boulevard).

Working alongside The Center for Tobacco Policy, the City University of New York (CUNY) has chosen to ban smoking on all of its facilities system-wide, and that includes the Manhattan Beach-based community college.

The policy bans the use of tobacco on all grounds and facilities under CUNY’s jurisdiction, both indoor and outdoor. It also prohibits tobacco industry promotions and marketing on campus properties, and tobacco industry sponsorship of athletic events and athletes. The ban makes CUNY the largest smoke-free public university system in the United States.

Kingborough Community College’s Coordinator of Student Life, Maria Patestas, said she doesn’t believe it will be a hard transition for students.

“The only time I really see the smokers outside on campus is on rainy days,” she said. “They’ll stand closer to the entrances of buildings, taking cover.”

But should there be a designated area for smokers on the Brooklyn campus? Patestas noted it wouldn’t be a bad idea, but that brings its own issues. “I mean how could you even regulate that?” she asked.

The origins of the new ban go back to January 2011, when CUNY’s Board of Trustees voted to approve a proposal made by a committee of faculty, staff and students.

For now, student smokers can enjoy the spring-like weather and a pull of their favorite cigarette. But in September this will all change. Verbal warnings will be submitted to students for now, but in the future Patestas does not dismiss the possibility of a fine system being implemented.

“We have to see how it goes first once September comes, but I think it’ll be harder for faculty and staff rather than students,” Patestas noted.

Comment policy


  1. Smoking is still a legal activity, how can it be banned campus-wide?  If they want to ban smoking then it needs to be illegal already…

  2. It’s no so much as banning it outside as it is banning it on their property which for all intents and purposes isn’t as public as a sidewalk or a park. They have every right to do it. I disagree with this course of action though, because this will be an unenforceable ban. If they follow through completely which I assume involves removing ashtrays and containers for cigarette butts, then that would lead to more litter. The 25′ away from an entrance rule they have now is much more effective and already enforced.

  3. No it doesn’t need to be illegal. The same way I can prevent you from smoking when you’re in my backyard. My house, my rules; Their campus, their rules. The board of trustees voted and banned it on CUNY campuses and those rules govern the campuses irrelevant of smoking’s legality. I still think this is a dumb move tho

  4. That makes no sense.  “If they want to ban smoking then it needs to be illegal already”.  The campus is not public property.  They can ban whatever they want.  If something is already illegal, then there would be no need to ban it.  That would be like KCC posting signs “No marijuana smoking.  No Crack smoking”.  There is no need to ban those things, since they are already illegal.

  5. Fuck everything about smoke bans. Everyone has an option to smoke or not to smoke. You get no second hand smoke outside.
    Banning smoking is equivalent to banning abortions. You are taking individual choice away. Here, I said it.

  6. Heck, it doesn’t even guarantee me the right to enter a f****ing playground 
     anymore (“unless accompanied by a child”). Do we have any rights left??

       My antipathy towards still another oppressive government act like this is balanced by the sadness I feel when I see a young person smoking, knowing what they’re doing to the future them. 

  7. Again, one part of me agrees.  The other part is, why should I pay the IMMENSE health care costs of people who are intentionally and knowingly damaging themselves in the most blatant way?

  8. Because you love freedom and live in the society. By your reasoning I should not pay for Staten Island ferry and G train because I don’t use them. Don’t make it too easy for me.

  9. Even all the restrictions already in place have not stopped young people from starting the smoking habit. The young are unable to comprehend that terrible things can happen to them far in the future. Many sincerely believe that they cannot become addicted to tobacco, but an occasional cigarette starts a slow cycle of increased usage over time. Eventually the truth becomes apparent. But even then, as Lenny Bruce correctly observed, intellectual awareness does no good.

  10. People can smoke outside – no restrictions on that. If KCC was a private institution I wouldn’t have a problem with this restriction. But they are subsidized by the taxpayers, so…

    I am not a smoker, by the way.

  11. Being a taxpayer doesn’t give you the right to cheat on a test or give you an automatic passing grade because you follow their rules in their schools and on their campuses because you agree to their terms. Being a tax payer does not endow special privileges, and smoking on their campuses is a privilege as it would be in my home if I allowed it. Your taxes fund and subsidize many businesses who still retain the ability to stop you from smoking on their property irrelevant of your status as a tax payer.

  12. Comparing grading, exams, to a no smoking policy on campus makes for a false analogy. Tax payers, who are subsidizing this institution, and thus should not be intentionally precluded from utilizing the very institution that they are funding. Making KCC a smoke free zone is not something that’s reasonable since it’s not in line with the policies that pertain to smoking in our society. 

  13. They’re all rules set by the board of trustees of CUNY, academic et al. If you take issue with the legitimacy of the board of trustees to set the rules on the campuses they’re assigned to govern then you should be writing a politician. Using the taxpayer argument is like telling a cop you pay his salary. Their campus, their rules and its in their right to ban it, as bad an idea as it may be.

  14. No doubt. That’s why I am against all subsidies. CUNY should be charging full tuition and we, the taxpayers, should be paying less in taxes.

  15. I’d like to see some figures. I wouldn’t be surprised if private universities are subsidized more than public ones by sheer fact that federal and state financial aid is allocated in great amounts because of their over-inflated tuition, but isn’t considered a subsidy.

  16. Breathing is a right?  That’s no more than a mere platitude.  As is saying smoking is a privilege.  And going on to support that as true because there have been restrictions.  In other words, the restrictions define the difference between right and privilege.  Just because mortal man makes a restriction it does not, ipso facto, define the difference.  Though it need also be noted that there have NOT always been restrictions on smoking. 

    But more importantly, to quote an anti-smoker lawyer in regard to the often misused expression “smoking is not a right”:  “Non-smokers have no more right to non-smoking where no law banning it exists.” 

    THAT’s the catch.  But for the mob owning the force of LAW to get around this “rights” issue by CREATING a denial of a one group’s freedom,” non-smokers really do not have more “rights” than smokers.

    Furthermore, so as not to confuse anyone, I base my opinions on a consistently applied principle no matter the subject matter.  Ergo, private property owners should be allowed to make their own rules.  But that doesn’t mean those rules can’t be objectionable.  We can still protest how WRONG (rather than about legalities) it is.  This one is as wrong as irrationally banning redheads.  There is no protected class for redheads and they can do it if they want.  Still ain’t right.  But anyone who argues that private property is the reason they can do it then, if you are truly principled and not just biased, you have to argue that private owners of bars and restaurants should be allowed to decide their own smoking policy as well.  

  17. it just occurred to me, that “kingsborough” is misspelled in the headline……….. kingborough? 

  18. My link to the “Honeymooners” is, I believe I was born the day the “Christmas” episode was aired. I’d confirm that but someone long ago swiped my Honeymooners book.

  19. I don’t see it as being that easy. I see a world of difference between services provided by the govt like transportation,  and people piling up zillions on health costs while killing themselves.

       I suppose the solution is, they should pay a larger amount of the health bill. I agree with the freedom to smoke, but I disagree with the socialism of the health system in this extreme case. Hence, the dilemma.

  20. It is the Gloomberg machine at its best. He makes up the numbers to back up his arguments. He loves to tell all of us how we should live, what to eat, drink and what/how much to season it. Coming soon… Thou shall not consume alcohol!This is nothing more than re-engineering society and noone knows to what end result. CUNY says we are all adult and as adults the student body should be allowed/able to make their own personal decisions. What I find curious is at the KCC campus trucks are allowed to spew diesel fumes while breaking the city’s no idling law. The 25 feet clearance near the doors should be sufficient. Outdoor smoke is at worst, negligible as a health factor. Students, open your eyes, see how we have been loosing our personal freedoms bit by bit!

  21. its about time they banded smoking, i remember in the cafeteria people would be smoking and have it all filled with smoke. that was so uncalled for.

Comments are closed.