Issues discussed at the first Student Government Association meeting of the 2012 spring semester included a bill for smoke free environments at the University of Houston — which was passed by a 16-6 vote, — student government elections, and proposal of a stipend for student teachers.
The University bill for smoke-free surroundings on campus has been on the SGAs plate since the fall of 2011. It is not intended to outlaw smoking on campus, but make the environment healthier for non-smoking students.
Initially the smoking ban was not widely accepted by the members of the SGA, primarily because of the way the bill was first proposed, according to communications and political science senior Michael McHugh.
He went on to say that the bill was first designed to ban smoking on campus entirely. Students and faculty would have faced tough consequences for violation of the ban and even visitors found smoking would be escorted off campus.
“I don’t think this (bill) would’ve passed last semester. It’s the first day back, and many members didn’t see any frustration with the bill, which led to a speedy (pass),” McHugh said.
The bill proposes implementing a 25-foot minimum distance from campus buildings for smokers and 35-foot distance for ash receptacles, as opposed to the 15-foot distance already in effect.
According to the text of the bill, implementation also involves no-smoking signs being posted “at appropriate places throughout (campus) buildings,” with each sign displaying the UH Fire Department and UH Dispatch numbers on it.
Enforcement of this policy may be somewhat challenging for students, faculty and campus authorities.
According to the bill, the success of the policy will depend on the thoughtfulness, cooperation and consideration of smokers and non-smokers alike.
Also mentioned at the meeting was the prospect of providing stipends for student teachers at UH.
The bill is a response, in part, to the lack of any compensation and the strict restrictions placed on when and how long the student teachers are allowed to work, according to the bill text. This leaves them with limited means to acquire money for goods and services they may need.
While it is a libertarian victory that this campus has not had smoker's rights taken away (and I am not even a smoker, but I'm happy about this point), the fact the bill doesn't take a strong stance on enforcement means it is NOT going to work.
First, I can think of a lot of folks who do not pay attention to anything put out via email, Twitter, The Daily Cougar–anything. There will STILL be smokers walking and puffing right up in your grill.
Second, you can come to Law Hall and see what good those no smoking signs do, especially given the proclivity of English as a Second Language students to smoke there between two picnic tables creating a proverbial cloud of smoke residents must walk through to get to their home in the Quadrangle, or to enjoy a meal at OB.
On a side note, the fact this bill is so weak–and started out as a play to take away people's rights–is exactly why Michael McHugh did not get elected president of the SGA.
This is another example of student government organization taking cues from "grown up" politicians trying to legitimize their paltry existence by creating legislation that protects us — from ourselves. I am not a smoker, but I believe regulating a legal activity not only creates a burden for the security team, but also ostracizes decent people. In a sense, it is fuel for many non-smoking individuals to retain a haughty condemnation of those who choose to smoke. Choice is key — policies such as these, that are presented under the guise of public welfare, only work to steadily erode the privilege of that choice.
I would argue that this is by no means a libertarian victory, as this represents a continuation of the social conditioning which is meant to redefine the scope of government — even, apparently, a student one.
>In a sense, it is fuel for many non-smoking individuals to retain a haughty condemnation of those who choose to smoke.
It's amusing to me that you think smoking is somehow a justifiable habit.
>Choice is key — policies such as these, that are presented under the guise of public welfare, only work to steadily erode the privilege of that choice.
Yes, a person should always have the 'choice' to breathe fresh air. This is something smokers deny me. What about their restriction of my choice? I should 'go somewhere else?'
>Yes, a person should always have the 'choice' to breathe fresh air. This is something smokers deny me. What about their restriction of my choice? I should 'go somewhere else?'
Actually, yes.
Penetrating insight, that.
I have a new plan. I'm going to carry a tank of Hydrogen Sulfide with me everywhere I go. Whenever a smoker lights up within eyeshot, I'm going to vent it in his face until he's done. I have every right to disperse the nauseous chemical wherever I please.
I think it's a great idea, but as previously stated it will be very difficult to enforce. The current signs are already being ignored, with people smoking right in front of them. As with any legislation if enforcement is lacking then it is moot. I'd have to disagree with Jimincognito, I feel it is about time that SGA does something right, what's wrong with trying to protect smokers. Even if smoking is legal it doesn't mean that non smokers should be subject to second hand smoke. People have a right to smoke but everyone has the right to life and in so much that they are endangering that right, no matter the degree that you believe that, they should be limited. You're not supposed to park on the side of the road either but does that mean that the school policy causes "haughty condemnation" of those that do? I think not. People that chose to buy the economy pass can't park in student only parking, does that mean they are ostracized? No, they chose to buy the pass much like a smoker chooses to smoke. The legislation does not take away your freedom to smoke, rather it helps minimize the infringement of rights to both smokes and non smokers.
I do not look down on smokers at all, however I do fine it disturbing to have to walk through smoke clouds and end up smelling like smoke myself.
I don't want to be the devil's advocate here..but as a non-smoke…I believe it is there choice & I think they deserve that right…sorry. If I had known I would have fought against it. It is none of our place to tell someone how to live there life. Very rarely do I see a smoker purposely blow smoke in a non-smokers face if ever…so why would we as non-smokers blow off our beliefs in theirs? Most smokers are very courteous in regards to this.
Do you avoid walking through a parking lot when a car is on? I wish that no one would ever pick up a habit that would harm themselves or anyone else, but that would mean nobody drives anymore, turns on the AC, heater or a light in their house. I honestly think things like this come about when people let personal feelings drive themselves to push for legislation to pass "laws" that directly affect other's free will… You wouldn't walk directly behind a car & put your mouth on the muffler or cut through a building that is on fire…you would walk around it & avoid it…why is this different? Hell, banning something makes it more desirable…consider prohibition..we learn history so it doesn't repeat itself…yet here we are today.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that smoking should be banned on campus. It's a filthy, disgusting habit and there is no reason – zero- why I, as a non-smoker, should be forced to endure the fumes of someone who has no self control.
Any why is it so important that smokers be able to smoke on campus, anyways? That's right, because they are addicted to cigarettes – something that ultimately will kill them, and drive up health care costs for the rest of society. I get screwed today because I can't get a breath of fresh air, and screwed in 40 years because my medicare taxes will pay for your lung transplant.