Search

ARCHIVES
CONTACT US
WORLD NEWS

Letters to the Editor

Smokers shouldn't be blamed

To the editor,

Recently, the UA has proposed a 25-foot-no smoking zone around all campus buildings. The various arguments put forth in support of policy changes, which are hazy at best.

It has been said that people smoking just outside campus buildings are causing problems for those working inside. If these problems are health related, then I believe some form of proof may be in order. It may be that the health risks of passive smoking in enclosed environments with smokers has been established, for example bar tenders. But since there is no smoking in the building, this becomes an entirely different situation. Implicit in this case is the assumption that smoke from cigarettes is able to enter the air inside the buildings, presumably via the air intakes on the side of the building. There are plainly visible signs near these intakes that request that there be no smoking or idling of vehicles near the vents. If these signs are being ignored then possibly someone should consider enforcing them before enacting yet more redundant legislation. Another possible problem that people may be experiencing is discomfort due to the presence of smoke particles in the building air supply. At this point, I would like to go back to the other banned activity near the intake vents, namely idling of vehicles. Engines are routinely left running on large trucks in and around many of the loading bays on campus, the resulting exhaust fumes then enter the air intakes which seem usually to be conveniently located close by for added efficiency. Maybe some brave soul would like to volunteer for an experiment whereby they stick their head behind the exhaust of an idling truck and then have a smoker blow smoke on them in order to see which is most discomforting. But seriously though, even if smoking is thought to be the main contributing factor to bad building air, then the enforcement of no smoking zones around major air intakes should be the first course of action.

The other reason for the proposed no smoking zone is the problem it causes for passers-by. Again, is this a health problem or not? If it is health related then some degree of proof is again required. On the other hand maybe the problem is limited to watery eyes etc. In this case is seems a little hypocritical to throw smokers out of the shade into the blazing Arizona sun, if only because an awful lot of students on campus drive cars. Try the exhaust test yourself with your car and a friendly neighborhood smoker, from the sounds of it the results may surprise you. One can hardly blame Tucson's air quality on smokers, they merely form an easy, politically correct target.

Finally, I would like to briefly touch on the practicality of this insanity. Firstly, the buildings on campus are located on average about 50 feet apart. Is this an oversight, or possibly the reason the distance of 25 feet was chosen? Secondly, the ash receptacles will need to be relocated to the new smoking areas, for example the middle of Speedway. This is not merely for the convenience of smokers, presumably a cigarette cannot be brought over to the side of a building to be disposed of. Still, this could have a good side effect, maybe at long last the morons that put paper in the ashtrays would no longer find them so convenient.

Leave smokers in peace and find yourselves another scapegoat.

Adam Shaw

Physics Junior

Flag burning unacceptable

To the editor,

In yesterday's commentary on flag burning, Sheila Bapat showed an astounding misunderstanding of our government, considering she's a political science major.

She closed her article by saying that America isn't great because it has a flag, but because we can burn it. America is great, because we are ruled by a Constitution that is ever changing, and men and women for hundreds of years have been willing to risk their lives for that constitution. Those in our armed services swear to defend the constitution.

Ms. Bapat says that the senate should not pass this amendment, because it would be fighting Supreme Court decisions. The Supreme Court makes decisions based on the constitution as it presently stands. An amendment would change that Constitution, and the Supreme Court decision would no longer be "binding." If the Senate always followed Ms. Bapat's logic, slavery would never have been outlawed, because the Dred Scott case was binding.

Ms. Bapat also states that "most senators" think this amendment is "futile." This is not true. Barely more than a third of the senators are against the amendment. Almost two thirds of the Senate thinks it has merit.

The men and women in the Senate are striving to protect "a piece of cloth" that represents this great republic built on the Constitution, not the right to burn the flag. Should this amendment be passed, that great Constitution would outlaw flag burning.

Flags mean a great deal to those who have died for them, and their descendants. They also mean a lot to those who have been oppressed under them. We can see this by looking at the controversy in South Carolina. This amendment shows respect for the hundreds of thousands who have died fighting under the Stars & Stripes. It is not about burning a piece of cloth. It's about burning the symbol that stands for the Constitution.

Josh Rieger

MIS senior