There is growing talk around the University about establishing a smoke-free campus. In other words: no more cigarettes.
This isn’t the invisible hand of some upper level politician with a nanny mindset, and it’s not the whim of the Board of Regents. Since late September, the Student Government Association has discussed a bill proposing a campus-wide smoking ban.
When the bill first came to attention, a hand full of smoking (and non-smoking) students appeared at an SGA meeting to voice their opposition. Since then, opinions have gone for and against the idea.
It’s true that SGA has the interest of smokers and non-smokers in mind and takes into consideration the thoughts of all students. But there must be more smokers on campus than the 30 smokers who showed up to the meeting.
A low turnout will do little to protect the rights of smokers.
Non-smokers with a real chip on their shoulder go a step further than the SGA. They criticize the on campus smokers with zero sympathy, zero comprehension and zero tolerance.
You may have seen a student walk by a smoker and start coughing — dramatically — towards the direction of the smoker. Spend half an hour in front of the M.D. Anderson Memorial Library to get an idea.
SGA senators are a little more down to earth, citing health concerns, financial costs and littering issues.
Before the criticisms roll in that I’m a non-smoker who’s ignorantly playing devil’s advocate, note that I used to smoke. For nine months I had my fill of Marlboro full flavor 100’s or the occasional Special Blend No. 27 (filters cut). Eventually my mother gave birth to me, and I went cold turkey.
Jokes aside, I’ve witnessed the true issues of cigarettes and smoke, but the simple truth is, there are more important things going on right now.
True, there are legitimate dangers from cigarettes. There are also legitimate dangers from high fructose corn syrup, which is more plentiful, affordable and socially accepted than cigarettes.
Some SGA senators want to create a smoke-free campus, much like the several already in the state and dozens already in the country. Supposedly it will make UH more green. It will cut health care costs. It will save money.
The truth is, there is a legacy to stomping out the smokers. It’s a prize to mount on the wall. Something to add to a transcript or portfolio: “Stomped out the smokers at UH.”
Eliminating alcohol on campus would have a similar effect, especially considering not many other colleges have such easy access. There would be no more bottle caps peppering the parking lots, no more eyesore beer bottles dotting the campus, no more obnoxiously drunk students.
But no one seems to worry about this.
This is, therefore, another case of discrimination. Smokers make a personal choice, healthy or not. Publicly denouncing them is tolerable, but singling them out when there are worse things to care about is just disgraceful.
For those not in the smoking circles, it may be a wonder why smokers congregate near each other. This shouldn’t be confusing, since it’s the same reason any persecuted group congregates. There is strength in numbers.
Yet non-smokers still get offended when they happen to come across one of these smoking circle pockets and inevitably get a whiff of nicotine-filled secondhand smoke.
Why these students don’t mind any of the other health concerns on campus is a mystery.
If the school became a smoke-free campus, the message would be that we aren’t allowed to make our own choices, our own mistakes.
It’s the same issue with mandatory seat-belts and helmets. Car insurance protects other drivers in case of an accident, seatbelts only protect the wearer and do nothing to help a pedestrian or passenger in another vehicle. So then, when the state mandates that a seatbelt be worn, the stance is that we are too dumb to take care of ourselves and are merely property of the state.
Freedom requires the ability to make wrong decisions.
If the campus becomes smoke-free, which campus will be next? What happens when all the campuses become smoke-free? Criminalization of tobacco?
What happened to the legalization movement for cannabis? What happened to progress?
Cigarettes may be seen as cancer sticks to many, but those critics simply haven’t been on the other side of the fence.
David Haydon is a political science senior and may be reached at [email protected].
>You may have seen a student walk by a smoker and start coughing — dramatically — towards the direction of the smoker. Spend half an hour in front of the M.D. Anderson Memorial Library to get an idea.
I have asthma. I can assure you that when I walk through your exhaust cloud, I am not coughing 'dramatically.'
I wish that smokers – by not smoking in air that I will breathe – would show as much consideration for me as I do for them – by not caring about whether they smoke or not, as long as it's not in air that I will breathe immediately.
I don't have a problem with people smoking. It's a disgusting habit, and extremely unhealthy. But to each his own. What I do have a problem with is being force to breathe the smoke other people exhale; *particularly* when it's in a situation where they are too lazy to move themselves to a secluded area. Smokers are like a crying baby in a theater in a theater – no, it's not illegal for them to exist and people shouldn't be disqualified from going to the theater because they are or have children. But if the child were to act up – they should be removed from the theater.
Rather than bitch about people trying to protect themselves from second hand smoke and the general unpleasantness that goes along with it, smokers should agressively pursue a campaign of 'responsible smoking' wherein they, out of a tremendous respect for non-smokers, remove themselves from situations where their smoking will offend others.
This protects the rights of the smokers' as well as those of non-smokers.
Some food or syrup or whatever affect ppl u say? Well at least if they consume it, they arent affecting anyone while.doing it. For instance, they say coke is bad, I personally dont drink it, but other ppl.around me do, and it doesnt bother me nor afffect me. However, ppl who smoke does affect me since I inhale it too. I do not wish to smell it or inhale it because its an awful smell for me and harmful. It is not the same to say that coke is bad because is a personal choice to consume it and is not harming anybody. Smoking does affect the people around the smoker.
Lone Star College has smoking pavillons which would be perfect for a compromise. Non-smokers can stay away from them, and smokers can huddle around and kill each other off faster. I'm really thinking that the author of this article did not research the effects of second hand smoking, and to say that non-smokers are taking away their freedoms is completely… ug. They're taking the choice away from non smokers by making them breathe in the smoke when they're being so inconsiderate.
There doesn't need to be a ban. Preferrably there should be smoke zones so non-smokers don't have to deal with secondhand smoke when entering entrances, and heavier enforcement of littering.
I don't quite understand how other "health concerns", only one being mentioned in context is alcohol, have as much or less impact than smoking. I think I've seen more cigarette butts than beer bottles or caps around campus, and someone who's drunk, doesn't have directly/indirectly affect your health as being near people who smoke.
A full outright ban is dumb, but doing nothing is also dumb. Making your own choices is good, but not taking steps to have due diligence and responsibility for actions that affect someone else is another thing. Mandatory seat belts have lowered deaths, and may have prevented further healthcare costs. I don't see why nobody is proposing a middle line in this issue where smokers can still smoke, but have near zero impacts on non-smokers.
smokers can smoke anywhere they want as long as it is OFF CAMPUS!!
My stance on this is similar to that of Mike's. If smokers would simply acknowledge that nonsmokers do NOT enjoy inhaling second hand smoke, that would not only be an act in accordance to the golden rule, but also create a level of reality that is rather sublime.
We're not going out of our way to make you stop smoking, we just want you to understand that proximal smoke DOES get inhaled, it's called 2nd hand smoke, and people who don't smoke simply don't like it.
So if we're going to make any progress with our endless addiction to big tobacco, how about we at least take into consideration that if 2 separate groups exist with separate biases, separate the fucking groups so that each can get along in their own circle of bias.
And if you're one of those who don't enjoy 2nd hand smoke like me, don't complain, they're killing themselves and you're mad because you can't hold your breath for 2 seconds. Yeah sometimes it's annoying but that's life so get a grip, and recognize progress when you see it.
Another thing I don't see talked about often is the specifics on second hand smoke. Sometimes I'll walk right past a smoker maybe 5 feet away and not smell it, but sometimes i'll be 25 feet away and get a whiff. If smokers understand that a simple distance from busy areas would alleviate social tension, why not agree to use those legs to burn a healthy 10 calories or so? I think it is not much to ask seeing as you're forcing cancer into yourself, if you're dumb enough to do that you should be smart enough to realize that those of us who don't want cancer will complain about your inconsiderate approach. And I'm not saying all smokers are dumb, there are a few intellectual cigarette smokers, and many socially acceptable ones, but like Terence McKenna said, "the three enemies of the people are hegemony, monogamy, and monotony."
If you're addicted to your *monogamy* with Mr. Butts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Butts), and your hierarchical *hegemony* is under criticism by the general public, then it's time for a change in this *monotonous* mindset of society.
But, hey! that's just me… we can always just do nothing.
Ban alcohol on a college campus! E-gads man, have you no respect for fine tradition? ! Why that would be like taking away students' rights to buy essays and pass them off as their own, or prohibiting the physical and psychological abuses masquerading as frat hazing, or mandating only electric cars in the parking lot so no one has to breath the carbon monoxide — that stuff which, incidentally, causes that icky air pollution. Oh, yes, by all means let's kick the smokers to the curb; they are, afterall, the greatest health threat!
Most campuses don't have alcohol…
Ban alcohol on a college campus! E-gads man, have you no respect for fine tradition? ! Why that would be like taking away students' rights to buy essays and pass them off as their own, or prohibiting the physical and psychological abuses masquerading as frat hazing, or mandating only electric cars in the parking lot so no one has to breath the carbon monoxide — that stuff which, incidentally, causes that icky air pollution. Oh, yes, by all means let's kick the smokers to the curb; they are, afterall, the greatest health threat!
We need more people like David Haydon in SGA.
Here's what I don't understand about those who complain about smoking on campus. If it's right next to an entrance/exit yes I understand the problem. If you're walking along and see a smoke in your area YOU can move just as much as him. You complain about having to walk past these people but we don't exactly have narrow spaces to walk on campus. See a smoker, alter YOUR route a few feet. Besides the smoke that they're putting in the air is not nearly as bad as the stuff your car puts out as your circle the parking lot for twenty minutes trying to find the closest spot.
>If you're walking along and see a smoke in your area YOU can move just as much as him.
If you do something that affects me, the onus is on *you* to make sure it doesn't, not me.
>You complain about having to walk past these people but we don't exactly have narrow spaces to walk on campus.
So non-smokers should walk in the grass? This sounds right.
>Besides the smoke that they're putting in the air is not nearly as bad as the stuff your car puts out as your circle the parking lot for twenty minutes trying to find the closest spot.
I don't walk in the street; the exhaust from a tail pipe is filtered – the exhaust from your cigarette is not.
David Haydon,
I've been to both of the meetings in the last two weeks to openly express my views on this subject. So far, this is the first Op-Ed in The Daily Cougar that truly addresses the issue before us.
HA.
"True, there are legitimate dangers from cigarettes. There are also legitimate dangers from high fructose corn syrup, which is more plentiful, affordable and socially accepted than cigarettes."
People constantly compare secondhand smoke to fast food, yet this analogy is completely invalid. When a person exhales smoke from a cigarette, a non-smoker nearby loses his or her right to breathe smoke-free air. A person who is consuming high fructose corn syrup does not inflict any harm upon the person sitting next to him. It is purely an individual act that solely affects the human being who has chosen to expose himself to the risks associated with high fructose corn syrup. Smoking infringes on the rights of nonsmokers, because the nonsmoker simply has no choice but to inhale the carcinogens. No individual possesses the right to compromise the health of others. Since 1964, the US Surgeon general has been informing the masses of the ill consequences of exposure to second hand smoke; there is absolutely no safe level. Smoking related illnesses continue to be the number one cause of preventable disease and disability. The scientific evidence delineating the harmful effects of passive or secondhand smoke continues to grow. One cannot compare the health consequences of secondhand smoke to the “legitimate dangers” associated with the consumption of junk food.
“Eliminating alcohol on campus would have a similar effect, especially considering not many other colleges have such easy access. There would be no more bottle caps peppering the parking lots, no more eyesore beer bottles dotting the campus, no more obnoxiously drunk students.”
Obnoxiously inebriated students are not seen on campus. When this inappropriate conduct does occur, the violator is subject to the student disciplinary policy because public intoxication is prohibited on campus. In addition, beer bottles are not frequently seen on campus. However one cannot deny the presence of excessive amounts of non-biodegradable cigarette butts on campus, as it is the major contributor to on campus litter.
“Why these students don’t mind any of the other health concerns on campus is a mystery.”
Why don’t you? One student cannot singlehandedly deal with every single issue the population faces. Yes, Houston is indeed one of the most polluted cities and eliminating cigarette smoke will not entirely solve the problem. However, it is a step towards making the environment a better and healthier place for all. Perhaps, one of the next steps could be to encourage students to carpool more frequently or ride their bikes. Yes Houston is horribly polluted, doesn’t mean an institution attempting to “Go Green” should continue contributing to the problem. We should join other campuses like OSU and UT-Arlington in the movement to become an establishment that is genuinely concerned for the health of its students, faculty, staff, visitors, and environment.
“They criticize the on campus smokers with zero sympathy, zero comprehension and zero tolerance.”
That is strictly a loaded and false statement. These students hope to transform the University of Houston into a place that wishes to ensure the health of all students is protected while sympathizing with those battling nicotine addictions. Hopefully smoking cessation programs will be implemented, free nicotine patches will be distributed, and warnings will be given while the University is allotted time to transition into a smoke-free environment.
Completely disagree. Alcohol does not affect ppl's health by jst standing nxt to them. Only affect the consumer's health. I was born and raise healthy and there should be no legitimate reasons on why should I deserve second hand smoking in an educational environment. Smokers are selfish, they have no concern for other ppl's health. Hell, they don't even care for their own health. Smoking is not much better than doing drugs, even worse, by fufilling their own addictive behaviors, they caused secondhand smokers lung cancer.
Personally, everyone has a choice. If you don't smoke, simply take a different route when on foot. It's rather funny reading everyone's comments about second-hand smoke. Don't you all realize the air that you currently breathe is polluted? Yup!! sure is!! So, for those of you who use an inhaler perhaps re-locating to a dryer climate would be better?
UH needs to designate areas for us smokers. Yes, shocker!! I am a smoker. I am one of the few smokers out there who has and happily shows my respect for those that aren't smokers: because I understand.
People argue that the butts are littering our campus; here's a thought, with the $5 increase in those student fees, why not invest in ashtrays or places to dispose of those pesky butts. I for one, have on numerous occasions picked up my very butts!! YAY!
To each his own is right. Let's keep it that way—-
"True, there are legitimate dangers from cigarettes. There are also legitimate dangers from high fructose corn syrup, which is more plentiful, affordable and socially accepted than cigarettes."
Yes, but when I walk out of the library and pass someone eating a Snickers bar, the high fructose corn syrup doesn't enter my stomach and add 500 calories to my daily intake.