Posted on Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 1:05 p.m.
University of Michigan gets ready to go totally smoke-free on campus
By AnnArbor.com Staff
On July 1, the University of Michigan will become the state's first big university to ban smoking on its campus, The Detroit Free Press reported today.
"By making all campus grounds smoke-free, the university intends to send a firm message that smoking is bad for the health of our faculty, staff and students, and that the university will support smokers in stopping and discourage nonsmokers from taking up smoking," Dr. Robert Winfield, U-M's chief health officer, told the Free Press.
The ban will cover all university property, including the Diag and lots used primarily for tailgating before football games, according to the article.
Comments
moodyone
Tue, Jun 14, 2011 : 1:01 p.m.
If it works out anything like the campus-wide smoking bans at EMU and IU, the only discernible result will be thousands of butts near every door to every campus building once the ashtrays are removed.
1998pa
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 2:09 p.m.
I'm assuming, Tom Joad, you neither own nor drive motor vehicles -- lord knows they emit enough garbage to assault one's respiratory system. I'm sorry, I'll support non-smoking areas where it makes sense -- generally, in closed public spaces -- but non-smokers are some of the most unreasonable, unprincipled human beings I've ever met. Their "right to clean air" supersedes any respect for private property rights. The people who fight the hardest for laws against smoking seem to be whiny, melodramatic "victims." You must have a selfish desire to distort facts to support your selfish agenda -- or you're stupid altogether -- to believe you'll get cancer from the mere scent of a cigarette 100 feet away ... outdoors.
dogpaddle
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 2:03 p.m.
I have read through all of these comments and many of the replies to these comments, and even though I've never smoked a cigarette in my life, I think I can see both sides of this. I really appreciate what Newsboy said. I really hate being around cigarette smoke. And we all know it's bad for everyone, not just smokers. Someone's second hand smoke negatively impacts me. On the other hand, where do regulations of our personal behaviors stop. I was so happy for the indoor smoking ban when it went into effect over a year ago. Nothing worse than being inside breathing in someone else's second hand smoke and coming home smelling like it. It's not fair to non-smokers, let alone unhealthy. To those who equate this with Prohibition and the War on Drugs, I agree. It doesn't work and you can't keep any of us, legal or not, for choosing to engage in activities that we enjoy whether it's good for us or not. But like someone else said, I can't walk down the street with a martini. Or a lit joint (outside of Ann Arbor). I can't have sex in public. There are places I can engage in those activities and they don't impact other people who don't want to be impacted by it or see it. I've tried to be open-minded when it comes to smoking cigarettes outside, thinking of it as a free zone. But, honestly, I really don't like being down wind from a smoker (or feeling like I should hold my breath while passing a group smoking outside a business). If you are opposed to alcohol, don't go to a bar. I do wonder how the U is really going to enforce this, too. Healthy or unhealthy, I don't want any of us losing our personal freedoms and rights and choices that really aren't others' business. I don't have an answer here, just thoughts. Non-smokers have rights. So do smokers. And the tobacco industry is as American as is the history of the USA as is liquor and so was hemp that our Constitution was written on. The pharmaceutical industry is the modern American industry. Bad for some, good for others.
newsboy
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 1:30 p.m.
We should think carefully before we create bans on any of our freedoms. Though I may not be a smoker, I have to wonder how deep these prohibitions can go. Whats up next; medical marijuana, holding hands, crying babes, gum chewing, dogs, meat eating, music, art, sex, free speech, free thoughts,Google? It seems were importing more from China than we thought. In the mean time; lets try to find more ways to divide and control each other by the rule of law. Just imagine James Dean being hauled away from the Diag in a police cruiser. How cool is that!
Mick52
Tue, Jun 14, 2011 : 7:10 p.m.
Smoking is not a freedom. As far as I am concerned no one should be banned from a bad habit, but if they do so, their costs for health care should reflect their self imposed poor health. Its happening all over: <a href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/uk_smoker_denied_surgery_for_broken_ankle/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/uk_smoker_denied_surgery_for_broken_ankle/</a>
Dexterdriver
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 1:29 p.m.
Oh come on now! The Nanny State mentality now permeates a lot of our American life. Enough is enough. Before long there will be a movement to ban tobacco altogether. That notion evokes the future that the book, This Perfect Day, portends, when the all-knowing dictatorial government controls all aspects of our lives. A dreadful day, by no means "Perfect".
A2Girl63
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 11:55 a.m.
Wonder how they will enforce this during art fair ?
Ron
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 10:48 a.m.
Does that mean no smoking "Mary Jane" ?
Ignatz
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 9 a.m.
This is ridiculous posturing on the part of the University. The nerve they have telling adults where they can smoke with no rational to do so. This will only expand the rift that now exists between those who smoke and those who don't. I'll be happy to take more time out of my work day to take some puffs. Now that's real time lost in productivity.
Mick52
Tue, Jun 14, 2011 : 7:08 p.m.
There is plenty of rational: <a href="http://lansing.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/smokers-fumed-over-2005-weyco-smoking-ban-policy-civil-liberties-groups-worried-about-privacy.aspx?googleid=277588" rel='nofollow'>http://lansing.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/smokers-fumed-over-2005-weyco-smoking-ban-policy-civil-liberties-groups-worried-about-privacy.aspx?googleid=277588</a> The rational is the high cost of having ill employees. Heck in Britain if you are a smoker you can't get surgery on your foot: <a href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/uk_smoker_denied_surgery_for_broken_ankle/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/uk_smoker_denied_surgery_for_broken_ankle/</a> What is happening worldwide because of the high cost of health care is a focus on unhealthy behavior of populations. Getting people healthy is the best way to lower health care costs. Why should we all have to pay more for health care to pay for medical attention for people who make themselves ill by bad habits?
Ignatz
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 12:40 p.m.
tresspass, You have no idea of what my break times are.
trespass
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 10:54 a.m.
The new policy does not change the fact that your break time is still only 15 minutes. Take more and you may be subject to disciplinary action.
John A2
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 5:53 a.m.
We can't even enforce our city and we are going to try to enforce this stupid rule. No wonder we are running out of money. It's because we keep making silly laws and putting people in jail and the we have to pay 120 or so a day if they are healthy, yeah right. spend more of our money on some silly thing when there is real crime out there that we can't even afford. Can you imagine that someone goes to jail for smoking tickets. Beside that if it is not illegal to smoke, then our tax dollars should not be used at an establishment that makes laws against it. The U takes up a lot of property in this town and now we have to know what side of the street to walk on if we want to smoke. I'm sorry but that's way to much power for a 501c3 to have. I can see why alcohol is not permitted, but this is going too far, and is way to controlling. Watch out, big brother is watching you.
Mick52
Tue, Jun 14, 2011 : 6:59 p.m.
Here, read this and weep some more: <a href="http://lansing.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/smokers-fumed-over-2005-weyco-smoking-ban-policy-civil-liberties-groups-worried-about-privacy.aspx?googleid=277588" rel='nofollow'>http://lansing.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/smokers-fumed-over-2005-weyco-smoking-ban-policy-civil-liberties-groups-worried-about-privacy.aspx?googleid=277588</a>
johnnya2
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 12:10 p.m.
There is hardly any cost to enforcement. How much does the U pay for enforcing no smoking in buildings? Even if there is a cost involved, what is the value you put on health? How about clean up for the idiots who flip their cigarette butts on the ground? I bet the fines will surpass the cost easily.
OverTaxed
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 3:07 a.m.
I do not believe what the university is doing is legal. The university is a public university, supported with a great deal of public tax dollars. Michigan does not have an outdoor smoking ban. Private businesses can do what they want, but public businesses need to follow public law. U of M cannot create new public policy, that is decided by the policies of this state. We do not need a university making more laws, we have enough in this "free" country. It"s a free country as long as you do what you're told.
Mick52
Tue, Jun 14, 2011 : 6:59 p.m.
Actually it is legal. In fact, in Michigan you can bar employees from smoking - even during off work hours. The basis is how much poor health costs employers. Here you go: <a href="http://lansing.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/smokers-fumed-over-2005-weyco-smoking-ban-policy-civil-liberties-groups-worried-about-privacy.aspx?googleid=277588" rel='nofollow'>http://lansing.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/smokers-fumed-over-2005-weyco-smoking-ban-policy-civil-liberties-groups-worried-about-privacy.aspx?googleid=277588</a>
Kozmund
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 5:53 a.m.
While I think the smoking ban has interesting legal implications, I also think that you're incorrect in your appraisal. First of all, it's not a law. Second, it is well established that the University of Michigan can exercise the general rights of a property owner (reading trespass, banning concealed carry that would be otherwise legal in Michigan, ignoring city-level law in general, etc, etc.) Third, the University of Michigan Health Systems (AKA The Medical Campus) has had a smoking ban for quite some time. As a fourth and final note, if you are not a student or employee of the University, the regulation has no teeth at all on its own. Certainly, if you're not "affiliated" (as they say) the worst they can do is read you trespass, but that's an entirely different wriggling sack of worms. All of that said, I believe the Coleman press release from earlier this year stated that for uniformity of enforcement, sidewalks adjacent to University owned roads (where the University owns the sidewalk) and sidewalks adjacent to city owned roads (where the city owns the sidewalk) are all to be treated as though the city "owned" the sidewalk, which is (as I understand it) more charitable to smokers than the UMHS smoking ban. Due to that fact, the implication more interesting than any legal one is that all of the conscientious students and employees who smoke will, rather than finding a spot very away from other people, head to the nearest sidewalk adjacent to a street.
treetowncartel
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 2:49 a.m.
Everywhere, everyday? Can't wait to see taiolgating this season, doubt this will put an end to those smokers. I suppose if you are in the Arb, you can just go stand in the river and smoke too. That ain't their property.
Oregon39_Michigan7
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 1:55 a.m.
Um, my undergraduate University did this about 10-15 years ago, why the hold up UM?
Michigan Man
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 12:18 a.m.
Does this mean that Barack Obama cannot light up on campus?
loves_fall
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 11:20 p.m.
Considering that UMHS is smoke free and people still smoke in the parking garage, and WCC is smoke free (except for union events - ha) and people smoke there all the time, I really wonder how UM is going to actually enforce this. I have nothing against it, but to some extent I think it's silly to make rules when you don't have the manpower to enforce them.
joe.blow
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 10:42 p.m.
I come from a much smaller less prestigious university and I have to say, WOW. How can UofM not be smoke free already? What is wrong with you people? You let people deliver lethal toxins on your campus? WTH?
psaume23
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 10:05 p.m.
Good move by UM, but it will be hard to enforce. Regardless of political stripe, hard-core cigarette users are very much like tea party-people in their anger and defiance toward laws that they perceive as infringing on their rights, so we will likely see a lot of "in your face" smoking in banned areas. NYC banned outdoor smoking as well, but it's hard to imagine that the NYPD will spend a lot of energy policing smoking outdoors.
Mick52
Tue, Jun 14, 2011 : 6:56 p.m.
People will be written up by their supervision and that should just about do it. Get written up often and you get the boot.
joe.blow
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 10:43 p.m.
Yeah, very much like the progressive movement and their anti-constitutional ways (by definition of the progressive concept).
trespass
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 9:14 p.m.
There is a basic misunderstanding of the University's motives. They are self insured for healthcare and they want to save money on healthcare. We have already made it quite difficult for smokers so those who continue to smoke are already hardcore smokers. A few more may quit because of this ban but the main affect will be to scare away potential employees who smoke. This doesn't actually improve the health of society or decrease overall healthcare costs but it does decrease the UM healthcare costs. It is a form of legal discrimination based on healthcare costs. Just wait until they try to scare away anyone who is overweight. Scaring away older employees would be illegal but I wouldn't put it past this administration.
Mick52
Tue, Jun 14, 2011 : 6:54 p.m.
They should bar smokers from being hired. Smokers are health care bottomless pits. It is legal to bar smokers, but unfortunately not obese people. Michigan is the only state that has a law that bans "discrimination" based on obesity. I would argue however that not hiring an obese person for reasons of increased health costs is not discrimination. You can ban smokers for unhealthy behavior. That is not discrimination so banning obese folks should not be discrimination either. Health care costs are spiraling out of control and just like with fuel consumption, the govt attacks business not the people who are most responsible. To apply more regulations on insurance companies without applying any to individuals makes no sense. Insisting on healthy lifestyles is the single best way to lower health care costs.
johnnya2
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 10:33 p.m.
It is not and should not be illegal to discriminate in hiring drug addicts. Smokers are drug addicts. It is currently illegal to discriminate based on age and weight, so your argument is silly.
Eep
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 9:34 p.m.
Employment discrimination based on weight is against the law in Michigan. Look up the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.
Davidian
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 8:34 p.m.
We all know how well banning marijuana on campus has worked.
Macabre Sunset
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 6:43 p.m.
If cigarettes were invented today, they would be banned as an illegal drug delivery device. Smokers like to use hyperbole to compare anti-smoking laws to all sorts of draconian prohibitions, but the truth is their disgusting addiction is in a category all by itself. Smoking is still legal, but please get your drug fix in private, along with the users of other drugs.
fremdfirma
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 6:25 p.m.
You have to wonder sometimes, it's like we learned nothing from the disastrous failure of prohibition - not only was it doomed from the start because it was in effect an attempt to enforce a certain morality via the law, even upon those who may not share it, but it also created a tremendous amount of crime and violence, something we have continued this failed policy with via the "War on (some) Drugs", and to a lesser extent, stealth-prohibition of tobacco by route of abuse of the tax system and local ordinances. Yes, where ventilation is a problem, and often remains so *despite* smoking bans, which is a dodge around it, it could possibly make some sense, an outdoor ban on smoking is ludicrous and amounts to a misuse of the law, insofar as public/shared property is concerned - privately a property owner can set their own rules, theoretically, but ask many bar/restaurant owners, those still in business at all, mind you, if that notion was respected in this case, and you'll find it wasn't. Still, in the end, what these laws mainly do is force a particular morality, often unwanted and unwelcome, down the throat of people who do not necessarily share it - which is in my opinion only a few steps short, if any at all, from state sponsored religion, as it was the Temperance Movement, a primarily religious minority, which initiated prohibition in the first place. So long as I am not in proximity to you, and "harming" no one but myself, how bout you let that be MY business instead of sticking your legislative poker into MY life at every turn and corner cause you don't like the way I live it, hmm ?
Mick52
Tue, Jun 14, 2011 : 6:49 p.m.
It has nothing to do with morals. It is about health.
johnnya2
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 8:56 p.m.
All laws force a " particular morality". I could say murder is immoral to you, so why do you have the right to impose it upon me? I could say watching child porn is not immoral to me, what right do you have to impose that on me? I could say walking nude in public is not immoral to me, but try not wearing clothes on State Street. The U has said you can not smoke on THEIR property. Just like I say you can not smoke own my property. If you are inside or outside of my home, you are not allowed to smoke. If you cant handle that, smoke on your own property that is not a place of public use.
Tom Joad
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 6:12 p.m.
your right to smoke cigarettes ends at my nose. Why is the non-smoker required to run a gauntlet of smokers lining the sidewalk? Smoking should be banned in all public places. You want to smoke, smoke on your own private property.
trespass
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 12:20 a.m.
@joe- your comment assumes that outdoor smoke is a health risk to the passerby. I guarantee you that there is no good science that shows that to be true. You get more exposure to smoke from the wildfires in Arizona.
joe.blow
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 10:45 p.m.
kt rix, I don't care that you try to be less offensive, the point is, you're increasing my chances of cancer by trying to be less offensive. Too bad the Chemo won't do the same. I also agree about perfume, I would rather small bad B.O.!
trespass
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 9:04 p.m.
Your right to wear bad perfume (or after shave) ends at my nose. I know it has no affect on my health but I don't like it. Why am I required to run the gauntlet of women wearing bad perfume lining the sidewalk. Perfume should be banned in all public places. You want to wear perfume, wear it on your own private property.
kt rix
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 7:36 p.m.
Why do you care if i smoke a cigarette in the grass of the diag as opposed to the sidewalk across the street? i feel bad walking through crowds while smoking, whereas sitting off by myself, or with a few friends, i feel much less offensive. i'll try not to blow smoke in your direction, but if i'm forced into a small corner of my city by people who think they can dictate my life, you might not want to walk by that corner.
DonBee
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 5:57 p.m.
I have to wonder if the biggest problem with smoking on campus next year will be Tobacco?
Mick52
Tue, Jun 14, 2011 : 6:48 p.m.
Not federal law trespass, state law. Has nothing to do with the police dept forming. That happened because of poor response by AAPD and the fact that nearly all major universities have their own PDs. You can't just make stuff up.
kt rix
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 7:30 p.m.
Trespass- how is it that they can receive federal grants and claim to be a drug free workplace when they don't even drug test? I love UofM and some of their policies, most of my family has worked there for years. i think this smoking ban is ridiculous, but so is claiming to be a 'drug free workplace.' i guess they're just full of contradictions this year
trespass
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 6:04 p.m.
The University of Michigan enforces federal law with regard to smoking marijuana. Thus, even if you have a medical marijana card they will arrest you on campus. This was one of the major reasons the University lobbied to have their own police department back in 1992. They say that it is because they have to certify that they are a drug free workplace in order to qualify for federal grants.
farrightfarleft
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 5:48 p.m.
Wow, talk about having a completely biased poll. How about, if I want to smoke I should be able to smoke? Where does the University have the authority to tell people what to do? Why is it their business to tell someone. who has made the choice, that they cannot smoke? Absolutely ridiculous.
Mick52
Tue, Jun 14, 2011 : 6:46 p.m.
As far as I am concerned, if the govt has to provide health care, or if your employer pays for your health care, then they have every right to tell you to stop doing unhealthy behavior. Its legal in Michigan, you can be fired for not quitting your smokes. See <a href="http://lansing.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/smokers-fumed-over-2005-weyco-smoking-ban-policy-civil-liberties-groups-worried-about-privacy.aspx?googleid=277588" rel='nofollow'>http://lansing.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/smokers-fumed-over-2005-weyco-smoking-ban-policy-civil-liberties-groups-worried-about-privacy.aspx?googleid=277588</a> Its happening all over.
bedrog
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 9:28 p.m.
your absolute freedom to do anything you want ends at the periphery of my body. Good for the UM
johnnya2
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 8:52 p.m.
Why does the government have the right to tell me if I can drink alcohol walking down the street.? Where does this authority come from? You are absolutely ridiculous. It shows just what major drug addicts smokers are.
trespass
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 5:26 p.m.
A smoking ban indoors make sense. Banning smoking outdoors anywhere on campus, even in designated areas, is just punitive against smoker and has nothing to do with the health of non-smokers. This is President Coleman's initiative. She is on the Board of Johnson and Johnson for which she is paid about $250,000/yr. How did she get on the Board? The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is one of the largest stockholders in J&J and it would be unlikely that she would be on the Board without their support. The RWJF's biggest campaign is to promote smoking cessation and lobby for smoking bans. The look at a major University, such as UM, as an opinion leader. If they can get a total smoking ban at UM then other universities and other companies may follow. Then they can try to get even more restrictive anti-smoking laws passed. President Coleman is supposed to avoid conflicts of interest such as this in any employment outside of her primary job as President of the University of Michigan. The Board of Regents should see this conflict of interest and ask her to resign her position on the J&J Board.
Mick52
Tue, Jun 14, 2011 : 6:42 p.m.
Who cares how much stock RWJF owns in Johnson and Johnson? They are connected, Robert Wood Johnson was one of the founders of Johnson and Johnson. J & J being a health care company it makes sense to end smoking. RWJF also supports the Active Living by Design program to promote health and healthy living. With the current focus on the cost of health care and providing everyone with health care, practices like this should be required. In fact, it is legal to deny jobs to smokers and to fire smokers in re to the higher costs of health care for employees. This is long overdue.
Bertha Venation
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 8:48 p.m.
ok... fine. So when do we start with the booze and the pot?
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 11:12 p.m.
trespass, here are links to my source..Morningstar. My apolopgies if these fail This link under concentration of stocks shows the 12.95 million shares owned by RWJF. <a href="http://investors.morningstar.com/ownership/shareholders-concentrated.html?t=JNJ®ion=USA&culture=en-us" rel='nofollow'>http://investors.morningstar.com/ownership/shareholders-concentrated.html?t=JNJ&region=USA&culture=en-us</a> This link shows the top 20 Institutional owners with #20 in the 16.8 million range. <a href="http://investors.morningstar.com/ownership/shareholders-major.html?t=JNJ®ion=USA&culture=en-us" rel='nofollow'>http://investors.morningstar.com/ownership/shareholders-major.html?t=JNJ&region=USA&culture=en-us</a> I'm pretending to be an expert on this so if I'm missing something in these Morningstar numbers I will stand corrected. I am also willing to concede that Morningstar could be incorrect.
trespass
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 9:53 p.m.
@Craig- can you tell me where you are getting your stock number because the RWJF was established in 1968 with a donation of 11 million shares of J&J stock and I am sure it has split since then. They have $8.5 billion in assets which would be over 100 million shares if it is mostly in J&J stock. They are also described as one of the largest institutional stock holder in J&J. I am also not sure how many votes it takes to get a seat on the Board since I am sure that not all stocks are voted.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 9:36 p.m.
trespass, I'm not saying you don't have some valid arguments except as i cited above. RWJF owns about 12.95 million shares of JNJ. That may at first glance seem big but JNJ has around 2.74 billion shares of common stock. So RWJF owns less than one half of one percent. The fact that most of RWJF's $8.5 assets are tied up in JNJ isn't relevant to what power they may wield at JNJ. Whats relevant is what those assets represent to JNJ. That is about 0.47% and does NOT put them even close to the top 20 holders of JNJ stock. Not that its relevant either but another way to look at those 12.95 million shares owned by RWJF is thats slightly more than JNJ's daily average volume of 12.4 million shares traded on the NYSE.
bedrog
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 9:27 p.m.
trespass: keep this up and you'll definitely be off of any invitation list to the coleman's (...and i say this in supprt of mary sue, not you!)
trespass
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 8:59 p.m.
@craig- RWJF has $8.5 billion in assets. The vast majority is J&J stock. That is a lot of votes for who sits on the Board.
johnnya2
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 8:51 p.m.
"The RWJF's biggest campaign is to promote smoking cessation and lobby for smoking bans" This is an admirable goal and there is not a single person who can say they are better off from smoking tobacco. For those who say "tobacco is still legal" , I would ask if alcohol is still legal? You are not allowed to drink it on ANY state university property. You can not walk down Main Street drinking a bottle of wine or beer. Alcohol does not spew its nasty smoke into the atmosphere like a cigarette does either.
Davidian
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 8:38 p.m.
I still think this person makes a strong point: that this is all about a political agenda and money and nothing to do with the health concern masquerade.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Jun 12, 2011 : 7:15 p.m.
"The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is one of the largest stockholders in J&J " Thats a bit of a stretch. They aren't even in the top 20.