Search

ARCHIVES
CONTACT US
WORLD NEWS

New smoking policy onerous but reasonable

The UA may have joined the movement to ostracize smokers of the world.

First it was Los Angeles, then Mesa, then Tucson and now the UA is spiking its tobacco policy like Brown & Williamson spikes cigarettes with nicotine.

Banning smoking, jacking up prices and bringing sanctions upon tobacco companies are all steps toward weeding out tobacco use in America. And that is wrong. If people want to smoke, they should be allowed to smoke. That's not even approaching the fact that the feds are making a nice little killing from the tobacco industry's massive earnings - a whole different editorial.

But this is about personal rights, and their infringement on the rights of the whole.

Our university has - upon suggestion from a health and wellness committee - proposed to make smokers walk wheezing and hacking 25 feet from all buildings before lighting up.

While we should all be cautious about this sort of policy, the smelly, puking fact of the matter is that people who don't smoke shouldn't have to suffer because of those who do.

The UA proposal is a reasonable one that only asks smokers to go far enough that smoke won't enter ventilation systems and subject innocent pink lungs to the most preventable cause of death in our society.

In its findings, the committee stated that the university's buildings don't have the ventilation systems necessary to filter out smoke from outside areas. If the UA community feels it is not safe from cancer inside of UA buildings, it only makes sense to make such a proposal.

After all, smokers are a minority, and a smaller amount of effort on their part is perfectly acceptable if it serves the health and/or lifespan of others.

But a few holes in the presentation and the attitude behind the policy are a bit disturbing and demand closer scrutiny before this proposal is railroaded into the books.

However, the health officials never address - other than citing complaints about smokers outside UA buildings - whether people smoking outside is a significant health threat to the community or if the community on the whole objects to such actions.

Melissa McGee, a UA health educator, said she is trying to inform faculty and organizations to get feedback on the policy change. For a proposal on a touchy subject like this one, the UA should reach out to get a popular opinion by survey or vote. Health officials can't assume that some complaints about people smoking represent the interests of the entire UA.

Also disturbing is the apparent intent behind the policy. McGee added that in the future, she would like to "tighten up" the policy and do away with exceptions like the concourses at sporting venues and the two smoking dormitories.

OK, and then maybe we could tighten it some more and eliminate smoking on the Mall, and then maybe smoking on campus. Or we could have the healthiest campus in the Union by prohibiting smokers from attending the UA. Political science majors call this a "slippery slope." Everyone else calls it "no fair."

If this policy change is a masked attempt to drive smokers from the UA, it's bad news. But if it is a scientifically backed attempt to protect the health of non-smokers - and the UA collectively proclaims that it is threatened by the proximity of smoking sections - then, by all means, smokers can take a walk.