Is Widener really that bad??

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
BlakcMajikc
Posts: 763
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:05 pm

Re: Is Widener really that bad??

Postby BlakcMajikc » Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:43 pm

introversional wrote:
emjay wrote:
BlakcMajikc wrote:WUSTL is tobacco free as well. I actually thought this was an up and coming trend for universities...
http://www.wustl.edu/announcements/tobaccofree/


I'm currently trying to decide on a law school. WUSTL was one of my options. It's not anymore.


I'm not a smoker, but do believe in freedom, especially the freedom to do what you'd like in your own car. "Smoking also is prohibited inside vehicles parked in campus parking lots." What's next, no masturbation on WUSTL grounds? Are hamburgers allowed?


Here is the list of smoke-free campuses:
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/smokefreeco ... sities.pdf

Here is the list of tobacco-free campuses:
http://www.lungoregon.org/tobacco/pdf_w ... es_100.pdf

User avatar
rinkrat19
Posts: 13915
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:35 am

Re: Is Widener really that bad??

Postby rinkrat19 » Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:45 pm

introversional wrote:
emjay wrote:
BlakcMajikc wrote:WUSTL is tobacco free as well. I actually thought this was an up and coming trend for universities...
http://www.wustl.edu/announcements/tobaccofree/


I'm currently trying to decide on a law school. WUSTL was one of my options. It's not anymore.


I'm not a smoker, but do believe in freedom, especially the freedom to do what you'd like in your own car. "Smoking also is prohibited inside vehicles parked in campus parking lots." What's next, no masturbation on WUSTL grounds? Are hamburgers allowed?


The problem with smoking is that smokers apparently think they should have the "freedom" to pollute other people's air. It's not legal to go around injecting others with toxins via syringe, why should it be legal to force them (NO, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO AVOID SECONDHAND SMOKE) to breathe harmful (not to mention utterly disgusting) fumes?

My UG (at the time I was there) had the ashcan things placed 30' away from entrances to buildings according to state law, and the asshole smokers not only didn't obey the 30' law and clustered around the doorways emitting foul clouds that we had to walk through to enter any building on campus at any time of day, but they then dropped their cigarette butts on the ground right there too, because they were too fucking lazy to walk 30'.

So I say, as a non-smoker to all the inconsiderate, self-centered smokers out there: Fuck you and the nicotine addiction you rode in on. I have the "freedom" to breathe clean air.

User avatar
Patriot1208
Posts: 7044
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:28 am

Re: Is Widener really that bad??

Postby Patriot1208 » Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:50 pm

introversional wrote:
emjay wrote:
BlakcMajikc wrote:WUSTL is tobacco free as well. I actually thought this was an up and coming trend for universities...
http://www.wustl.edu/announcements/tobaccofree/


I'm currently trying to decide on a law school. WUSTL was one of my options. It's not anymore.


I'm not a smoker, but do believe in freedom, especially the freedom to do what you'd like in your own car. "Smoking also is prohibited inside vehicles parked in campus parking lots." What's next, no masturbation on WUSTL grounds? Are hamburgers allowed?

TBF, it's a city and county wide smoking ban. Now, obviously on the street in the city you can smoke, WUSTL just took it a bit farther because the kids petitioned for it. There was a huge movement on campus to get it through, actually.

User avatar
introversional
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:59 am

Re: Is Widener really that bad??

Postby introversional » Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:50 pm

rinkrat19 wrote:
introversional wrote:
emjay wrote:
BlakcMajikc wrote:WUSTL is tobacco free as well. I actually thought this was an up and coming trend for universities...
http://www.wustl.edu/announcements/tobaccofree/


I'm currently trying to decide on a law school. WUSTL was one of my options. It's not anymore.


I'm not a smoker, but do believe in freedom, especially the freedom to do what you'd like in your own car. "Smoking also is prohibited inside vehicles parked in campus parking lots." What's next, no masturbation on WUSTL grounds? Are hamburgers allowed?


The problem with smoking is that smokers apparently think they should have the "freedom" to pollute other people's air. It's not legal to go around injecting others with toxins via syringe, why should it be legal to force them (NO, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO AVOID SECONDHAND SMOKE) to breathe harmful (not to mention utterly disgusting) fumes?

My UG (at the time I was there) had the ashcan things placed 30' away from entrances to buildings according to state law, and the asshole smokers not only didn't obey the 30' law and clustered around the doorways emitting foul clouds that we had to walk through to enter any building on campus at any time of day, but they then dropped their cigarette butts on the ground right there too, because they were too fucking lazy to walk 30'.

So I say, as a non-smoker to all the inconsiderate, self-centered smokers out there: Fuck you and the nicotine addiction you rode in on. I have the "freedom" to breathe clean air.


This is a slippery slope as far as arguments go.... read this, slightly altered version, below.

The problem with driving is that drivers apparently think they should have the "freedom" to pollute other people's air. It's not legal to go around injecting others with toxins via syringe, why should it be legal to force them (NO, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO AVOID EXHAUST SMOKE) to breathe harmful (not to mention utterly disgusting) exhaust fumes?

Should the internal combustion engine, and anyone driving a vehicle containing one, be illegal? Answer carefully.

User avatar
rinkrat19
Posts: 13915
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:35 am

Re: Is Widener really that bad??

Postby rinkrat19 » Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:08 pm

introversional wrote:
rinkrat19 wrote:The problem with smoking is that smokers apparently think they should have the "freedom" to pollute other people's air. It's not legal to go around injecting others with toxins via syringe, why should it be legal to force them (NO, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO AVOID SECONDHAND SMOKE) to breathe harmful (not to mention utterly disgusting) fumes?

My UG (at the time I was there) had the ashcan things placed 30' away from entrances to buildings according to state law, and the asshole smokers not only didn't obey the 30' law and clustered around the doorways emitting foul clouds that we had to walk through to enter any building on campus at any time of day, but they then dropped their cigarette butts on the ground right there too, because they were too fucking lazy to walk 30'.

So I say, as a non-smoker to all the inconsiderate, self-centered smokers out there: Fuck you and the nicotine addiction you rode in on. I have the "freedom" to breathe clean air.


This is a slippery slope as far as arguments go.... read this, slightly altered version, below.

The problem with driving is that drivers apparently think they should have the "freedom" to pollute other people's air. It's not legal to go around injecting others with toxins via syringe, why should it be legal to force them (NO, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO AVOID EXHAUST SMOKE) to breathe harmful (not to mention utterly disgusting) exhaust fumes?

Should the internal combustion engine, and anyone driving a vehicle containing one, be illegal? Answer carefully.


Smoking and driving are hardly equivalent. Smoking doesn't provide a vital service (transportation) for which there is as yet no practical substitute, and there is no legally-required effort to limit the negative effects of a cigarette on the public (catalytic converter).

You could compare smoking to, say, riding a jetski (about the same practical use--none--and those 2-cycle motors pumping their exhaust into the water are environmentally terrible). I'd have no problem with oulawing personal watercraft.

User avatar
introversional
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:59 am

Re: Is Widener really that bad??

Postby introversional » Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:25 pm

rinkrat19 wrote:
introversional wrote:
rinkrat19 wrote:The problem with smoking is that smokers apparently think they should have the "freedom" to pollute other people's air. It's not legal to go around injecting others with toxins via syringe, why should it be legal to force them (NO, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO AVOID SECONDHAND SMOKE) to breathe harmful (not to mention utterly disgusting) fumes?

My UG (at the time I was there) had the ashcan things placed 30' away from entrances to buildings according to state law, and the asshole smokers not only didn't obey the 30' law and clustered around the doorways emitting foul clouds that we had to walk through to enter any building on campus at any time of day, but they then dropped their cigarette butts on the ground right there too, because they were too fucking lazy to walk 30'.

So I say, as a non-smoker to all the inconsiderate, self-centered smokers out there: Fuck you and the nicotine addiction you rode in on. I have the "freedom" to breathe clean air.


This is a slippery slope as far as arguments go.... read this, slightly altered version, below.

The problem with driving is that drivers apparently think they should have the "freedom" to pollute other people's air. It's not legal to go around injecting others with toxins via syringe, why should it be legal to force them (NO, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO AVOID EXHAUST SMOKE) to breathe harmful (not to mention utterly disgusting) exhaust fumes?

Should the internal combustion engine, and anyone driving a vehicle containing one, be illegal? Answer carefully.


Smoking and driving are hardly equivalent. Smoking doesn't provide a vital service (transportation) for which there is as yet no practical substitute, and there is no legally-required effort to limit the negative effects of a cigarette on the public (catalytic converter).

You could compare smoking to, say, riding a jetski (about the same practical use--none--and those 2-cycle motors pumping their exhaust into the water are environmentally terrible). I'd have no problem with oulawing personal watercraft.


Driving doesn't always provide a vital service either, and transportation isn't the only reason for driving. Unless we distinguish and enforce driving for a "practical" purpose (such as getting to work, going to the grocery store, etc) vs. joyriding, leisure, etc, it's a pretty moot point. I won't bother supporting this any further because it's obvious.

Also, a catalytic converter is similar to a cigarette filter in the sense it may lessen the amount of carcinogenic byproduct, but by no means stops the polution of air completely. Can you prove that someone having 1/2 of a cigarette outside during a normally windy day is more harmful to someone walking by then that that same person driving during traffic in any major city is to someone else? Carbon monoxide (amongst all the other chemicals in exhause smoke) kills, remember.

I think cigarettes are disguisting and should go away, but I'm also hesitant in supporting hypocricy.

User avatar
AreJay711
Posts: 3406
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:51 pm

Re: Is Widener really that bad??

Postby AreJay711 » Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:11 pm

rinkrat19 wrote:
introversional wrote:
emjay wrote:
BlakcMajikc wrote:WUSTL is tobacco free as well. I actually thought this was an up and coming trend for universities...
http://www.wustl.edu/announcements/tobaccofree/


I'm currently trying to decide on a law school. WUSTL was one of my options. It's not anymore.


I'm not a smoker, but do believe in freedom, especially the freedom to do what you'd like in your own car. "Smoking also is prohibited inside vehicles parked in campus parking lots." What's next, no masturbation on WUSTL grounds? Are hamburgers allowed?


The problem with smoking is that smokers apparently think they should have the "freedom" to pollute other people's air. It's not legal to go around injecting others with toxins via syringe, why should it be legal to force them (NO, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO AVOID SECONDHAND SMOKE) to breathe harmful (not to mention utterly disgusting) fumes?

My UG (at the time I was there) had the ashcan things placed 30' away from entrances to buildings according to state law, and the asshole smokers not only didn't obey the 30' law and clustered around the doorways emitting foul clouds that we had to walk through to enter any building on campus at any time of day, but they then dropped their cigarette butts on the ground right there too, because they were too fucking lazy to walk 30'.

So I say, as a non-smoker to all the inconsiderate, self-centered smokers out there: Fuck you and the nicotine addiction you rode in on. I have the "freedom" to breathe clean air.


Actually, outside, you have to stay within 1.5 ft downwind of someone for the length of time for them to smoke 6 -8 cigarettes for there to be any appreciable smoke inhalation. The real reason for the ban is because 1) non-smokers don't like the smell 2) non-smokers don't like smokers and 3) non-smokers want everyone else to make the same health decisions they did.

seriously????
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:15 am

Re: Is Widener really that bad??

Postby seriously???? » Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:30 pm

rinkrat19 wrote:
introversional wrote:
emjay wrote:
BlakcMajikc wrote:WUSTL is tobacco free as well. I actually thought this was an up and coming trend for universities...
http://www.wustl.edu/announcements/tobaccofree/


I'm currently trying to decide on a law school. WUSTL was one of my options. It's not anymore.


I'm not a smoker, but do believe in freedom, especially the freedom to do what you'd like in your own car. "Smoking also is prohibited inside vehicles parked in campus parking lots." What's next, no masturbation on WUSTL grounds? Are hamburgers allowed?


The problem with smoking is that smokers apparently think they should have the "freedom" to pollute other people's air. It's not legal to go around injecting others with toxins via syringe, why should it be legal to force them (NO, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO AVOID SECONDHAND SMOKE) to breathe harmful (not to mention utterly disgusting) fumes?

My UG (at the time I was there) had the ashcan things placed 30' away from entrances to buildings according to state law, and the asshole smokers not only didn't obey the 30' law and clustered around the doorways emitting foul clouds that we had to walk through to enter any building on campus at any time of day, but they then dropped their cigarette butts on the ground right there too, because they were too fucking lazy to walk 30'.

So I say, as a non-smoker to all the inconsiderate, self-centered smokers out there: Fuck you and the nicotine addiction you rode in on. I have the "freedom" to breathe clean air.


you'll only find clean air in the forest. you also have your freedom to tell these smokers to back off from the door. i find it inconsiderate of you not to converse and cooperate with smokers, than to let your anger buildup and support banning it altogher.

twb136
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:05 am

Re: Is Widener really that bad??

Postby twb136 » Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:42 pm

Hey man, I don't want to discourage you but you really need to consider and research the idea of passing the bar rather than going to law school. The PA bar's character and fitness standard is:

The character and fitness standards require that an applicant to the bar be one whose record of conduct justifies the trust of clients, adversaries, courts and others. The hallmark of such a person is honesty, especially in connection with the application for admission to the bar. Persons with a record showing a deficiency in honesty, trustworthiness, diligence or reliability may not be recommended for admission.

If you think you can pass that, then consider law school in my opinion, if that matters, consider the night program and continue with your day job.

johnnysweet
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:33 pm

Re: Is Widener really that bad??

Postby johnnysweet » Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 am

Yeah I called the pa bar they said there is no set number or level of crime, they consider it on a case to case basis.
And I just quit smoking in october after 13 years lol, so a non smoking campus might be good for me :lol:

claudenm
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 7:52 pm

Re: Is Widener really that bad??

Postby claudenm » Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:30 pm

I'm unclear how taking out $100k in loans, plus foregoing $90k in income all with a non zero chance of not being granted bar admission, and a non zero chance of not practicing law is "getting ahead".

MrAnon
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:08 pm

Re: Is Widener really that bad??

Postby MrAnon » Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:52 pm

I would not go to Widener unless Widener paid me. 70K per year.

User avatar
kapital98
Posts: 1188
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Is Widener really that bad??

Postby kapital98 » Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:07 pm

claudenm wrote:I'm unclear how taking out $100k in loans, plus foregoing $90k in income all with a non zero chance of not being granted bar admission, and a non zero chance of not practicing law is "getting ahead".



You haven't worked manual labor. Bust your back in construction and landscapping and then you may realize how plush ancillary labor (aka, lawyers) have it.

User avatar
Patriot1208
Posts: 7044
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:28 am

Re: Is Widener really that bad??

Postby Patriot1208 » Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:08 pm

kapital98 wrote:
claudenm wrote:I'm unclear how taking out $100k in loans, plus foregoing $90k in income all with a non zero chance of not being granted bar admission, and a non zero chance of not practicing law is "getting ahead".



You haven't worked manual labor. Bust your back in construction and landscapping and then you may realize how plush ancillary labor (aka, lawyers) have it.

I think you missed the point

User avatar
kapital98
Posts: 1188
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Is Widener really that bad??

Postby kapital98 » Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:13 pm

I got the point -> Income (which the poster thankfully included opportunity cost.)

People who have never worked manual labor tend to think it's somehow similar to busting tables or being a clerk. Just because you're paid the same total compensation doesn't mean it's the same.

Good luck to the OP. Even if his lifetime earnings do not increase his job satisfaction, quality of life, and prestige will. These are all harder to quantify but should still be considered.

User avatar
Patriot1208
Posts: 7044
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:28 am

Re: Is Widener really that bad??

Postby Patriot1208 » Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:20 pm

kapital98 wrote:I got the point -> Income (which the poster thankfully included opportunity cost.)

People who have never worked manual labor tend to think it's somehow similar to busting tables or being a clerk. Just because you're paid the same total compensation doesn't mean it's the same.

Good luck to the OP. Even if his lifetime earnings do not increase his job satisfaction, quality of life, and prestige will. These are all harder to quantify but should still be considered.

Ok, now I know you missed the point

User avatar
kapital98
Posts: 1188
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Is Widener really that bad??

Postby kapital98 » Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:19 pm

If you're alluding to not being accepted to the bar... that is a function of income.

If not then I would truly like to know what I'm missing.

User avatar
Patriot1208
Posts: 7044
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:28 am

Re: Is Widener really that bad??

Postby Patriot1208 » Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:25 pm

kapital98 wrote:If you're alluding to not being accepted to the bar... that is a function of income.

If not then I would truly like to know what I'm missing.


Not just not passing the bar, not being able to get employment. The point is that from Widener, many of the graduates won't even be able to get legal employment. Then when you add in the six figures of non dischargeable debt, it is a bad decision no matter how taxing manual labor is. Sure, the personal utility of not having to do manual labor is something we all have to balance, but in this case the adverse financial factors certainly outweigh the personal utility.

User avatar
AreJay711
Posts: 3406
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:51 pm

Re: Is Widener really that bad??

Postby AreJay711 » Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:28 pm

Patriot1208 wrote:
kapital98 wrote:If you're alluding to not being accepted to the bar... that is a function of income.

If not then I would truly like to know what I'm missing.


Not just not passing the bar, not being able to get employment. The point is that from Widener, many of the graduates won't even be able to get legal employment. Then when you add in the six figures of non dischargeable debt, it is a bad decision no matter how taxing manual labor is. Sure, the personal utility of not having to do manual labor is something we all have to balance, but in this case the adverse financial factors certainly outweigh the personal utility.


If the OP smart enough to get into law school, the OP is smart enough to get a supervisor role where he can work with his mind and make very good money.

MrAnon
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:08 pm

Re: Is Widener really that bad??

Postby MrAnon » Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:27 pm

I don't know where you read that Widener grads make $50k but from research it seems the going rate is more like 30k to start --LinkRemoved-- and 60k for the more seasoned --LinkRemoved--. Loans on such salaries are no picnic.

seriously????
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:15 am

Re: Is Widener really that bad??

Postby seriously???? » Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:40 pm

MrAnon wrote:I don't know where you read that Widener grads make $50k but from research it seems the going rate is more like 30k to start --LinkRemoved-- and 60k for the more seasoned --LinkRemoved--. Loans on such salaries are no picnic.


the debt factor is a big point, and perhaps (call admissions) if you had a higher lsat then you might be able to get more money...

as far as those salaries, i mean it is like that for a nice chunk of students at most schools. again, i think only 30% of the students at widener are landing legal jobs...

and anon your Widener has to pay me 70k to go there quote, you joking, serious, or somewhere in between? unless you are going to a t14, no need to trash widener that much...

that being said, a school like widener is still mainly a rational choice if it is a full ride. but, if OP's life scenario is either manual labor or law, law should pay off much better in the longrun, for the physical body deteriorates years before the mind does. also, maybe you'd be good at labor law with manual laborers, for having experience in the field might attract clients.

bigkahuna2020
Posts: 494
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 2:12 am

Re: Is Widener really that bad??

Postby bigkahuna2020 » Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:46 pm

rinkrat19 wrote:The problem with smoking is that smokers apparently think they should have the "freedom" to pollute other people's air. It's not legal to go around injecting others with toxins via syringe, why should it be legal to force them (NO, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO AVOID SECONDHAND SMOKE) to breathe harmful (not to mention utterly disgusting) fumes?

My UG (at the time I was there) had the ashcan things placed 30' away from entrances to buildings according to state law, and the asshole smokers not only didn't obey the 30' law and clustered around the doorways emitting foul clouds that we had to walk through to enter any building on campus at any time of day, but they then dropped their cigarette butts on the ground right there too, because they were too fucking lazy to walk 30'.

So I say, as a non-smoker to all the inconsiderate, self-centered smokers out there: Fuck you and the nicotine addiction you rode in on. I have the "freedom" to breathe clean air.


If there was any scientific evidence to show that outdoor smoking was dangerous, you might have a point. Because your logic now means that BO should be banned.

User avatar
kapital98
Posts: 1188
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Is Widener really that bad??

Postby kapital98 » Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:52 pm

seriously???? wrote:
MrAnon wrote:also, maybe you'd be good at labor law with manual laborers, for having experience in the field might attract clients.


That's a good point. With some formal training in the political economy of labor markets that would give the OP a very unique perspective when working with clients.

User avatar
rinkrat19
Posts: 13915
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:35 am

Re: Is Widener really that bad??

Postby rinkrat19 » Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:54 pm

bigkahuna2020 wrote:
rinkrat19 wrote:The problem with smoking is that smokers apparently think they should have the "freedom" to pollute other people's air. It's not legal to go around injecting others with toxins via syringe, why should it be legal to force them (NO, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO AVOID SECONDHAND SMOKE) to breathe harmful (not to mention utterly disgusting) fumes?

My UG (at the time I was there) had the ashcan things placed 30' away from entrances to buildings according to state law, and the asshole smokers not only didn't obey the 30' law and clustered around the doorways emitting foul clouds that we had to walk through to enter any building on campus at any time of day, but they then dropped their cigarette butts on the ground right there too, because they were too fucking lazy to walk 30'.

So I say, as a non-smoker to all the inconsiderate, self-centered smokers out there: Fuck you and the nicotine addiction you rode in on. I have the "freedom" to breathe clean air.


If there was any scientific evidence to show that outdoor smoking was dangerous, you might have a point. Because your logic now means that BO should be banned.


Now, Stanford University researchers have conducted the first in-depth study on how smoking affects air quality at sidewalk cafés, park benches and other outdoor locations. Writing in the May issue of the Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association (JAWMA), the Stanford team concluded that a non-smoker sitting a few feet downwind from a smoldering cigarette is likely to be exposed to substantial levels of contaminated air for brief periods of time.
...
Klepeis pointed to the 2006 Surgeon General's report, which found that even brief exposures to secondhand smoke may have adverse effects on the heart and respiratory systems and increase the severity of asthma attacks, especially in children.

"We were surprised to discover that being within a few feet of a smoker outdoors may expose you to air pollution levels that are comparable, on average, to indoor levels that we measured in previous studies of homes and taverns," said Wayne Ott, professor (consulting) of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford and co-author of the JAWMA study.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 181454.htm

seriously????
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:15 am

Re: Is Widener really that bad??

Postby seriously???? » Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:59 pm

sorry, still not a good argument...smoke outdoors is psychologically harmful 99% of the time, unless you are hanging out in an outdoor cafe where everyone is puffing up constantly for several hours. I can tell you first hand that if you stay there long enough you will feel it. but if you are only around cigarette smoke for a few seconds, it will do nadda.

understand how you are pissed, but no need to ban smoking. at least have a designated smoking section.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest