side bar
logo
Sunday, April 30, 2017

Opinion

Banning smoking on campus just alienates smokers


UHsmoking

Reports show that at least one third of college students smoke tobacco products | Illustration by Kevin Lemus

The recent tobacco ban on campus stems from good intentions.

Since 2012, a task force of UH students, staff and faculty had pushed toward a “tobacco-free campus.” The policy does “not require faculty, staff and students to quit using tobacco products, but does expect the policy to be adhered to by all individuals on university property.”

According to a news release from Floyd Robinson, Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs – Health and Wellness, the ban came from “our social responsibility to promote the health, wellbeing and safety of UH students, faculty, staff and visitors.”

However, this pursuit of the health of the entire campus does come at the expense of choice for individual smokers.

Designated smoking areas were established as part of a gradual “effort to phase in the tobacco free environment,” said Robinson.

The areas weren’t designed to be a permanent presence but rather a fleeting step of a transitory process.

The recent removal of the areas would inconvenience an essential right of smoking on campus.

Although anti-smoking organizations can preach about the harmful effects of tobacco, smokers tend to know what they are getting into when they light a cigarette. They know about the risk of lung cancer.

They likely were warned about the negative effects, but they know it’s their life. To them, smoking is a preference. For some, it’s a means of stress-reduction and a break after a hard day of classes.

In the past year, the idea of designated smoking areas granted some productivity. Even if the execution wasn’t perfect.

“Maybe they (could have) planned the areas better. Areas I’ve seen were in the middle of crosswalks (where non-smokers often pass),” said former smoker Kevin Kendrick, a media production senior.

Overall, it did present compromise. “The areas were like a peace treaty that was really well-respected by smokers.”

Overall (even if imperfectly), the areas sanctioned a degree of courtesy toward the health of non-smokers. Smokers could hang around these areas and responsibly minimize smoke for those who do not wish to be exposed to second-hand air.

Kendrick further suggested that campus smokers would be deprived of their safe area for a smoke. “Taking away the designated areas means that people are going to be smoking elsewhere… areas not heavy on traffic on campus. No one wants to walk off campus to smoke.”

UH does a good job accommodating those who want to quit, such as providing the availability of tobacco-cessation resources. The notion of quitting tobacco, however, should be treated as a strong recommendation rather than mandatory implementation over the overall smoking population at UH.

People are going to smoke whether the school wants them to or not. Penalizing people for a lifestyle choice is not the answer.

Carol Cao is a creative writing and media production senior and may be reached [email protected]

Tags: , ,


  • David

    It should be mandatory across the campus.

  • Russell

    alienates your drug addiction. You have got to be kidding.
    No one should have to ever tolerate another’s habit and the habit makes the campus looks trashy.
    Thank you UH!!!!!!

  • Jackson

    Does this take into account the fact that UH is eligible for additional funding by making this move?

  • Mina K.

    Lifestyle choices are fine when they don’t affect other people’s health too. How selfish do you have to be to subject not only yourself but others to said harmful choices as well? You may be okay with getting lung cancer but others aren’t. It’s not “judging” if what you do harms another and you are asked to stop doing it-it’s how we live in a civil society.

  • AC Simons

    I wouldn’t mind so much if smokers would clean up their cigarette butts. It’s really unsightly and disgusting. (I am an ex-smoker.)

  • Kyle Devasier

    The smoking sections were bad, in that they were in areas that had heavy traffic flow. Second-hand smoke is, of course, a danger. But that’s why they should’ve put them in more secluded areas. As a grown man (my age is 30), I don’t like the idea of walking a quarter mile to my car just to have a drag of a cig. I’m reminded of what my old debate coach use to tell me: the right to extend your fist to my face ends at the tip of nose. If I can go to an out-of-the-way area to smoke a cigarette, where I am not subjugating anyone else to my second-hand smoke, then I should be able to. Because after all, it’s a pretty big campus.

  • Vinny Gracchus

    Repeal the smoking ban and restore dedicated smoking areas. There are virtually no health risks to others from second hand smoke–indoors or out. This has been demonstrated in numerous studies.

Back to Top ↑
  • Sign up for our Email Edition

  • Polls

    Does the construction along Spur 5, which will eventually impact the U.S. 59 north and south on-ramps from I-45, affect your commute to class?

    • Yes, my commute will be dramatically different and much longer (36%, 38 Votes)
    • My commute will be slightly impacted, but it's not too much of a nuisance (29%, 31 Votes)
    • I don't commute/ I never use I-45 or Spur 5 (23%, 24 Votes)
    • I commute but had no idea about the construction (12%, 13 Votes)

    Total Voters: 106

    Loading ... Loading ...
  • Recent articles

  • Special Sections