Last spring’s UOSA referendum indicating student interest in a campus-wide smoking ban may go up in smoke if the UOSA Undergraduate Student Congress does not act.
A referendum passed last spring with 49 percent of the students voting in favor of a ban on smoking, 29 percent voted for a partial ban and 22 percent voted for no change. A total of 2,486 students voted on the referendum.
Although the referendum is not legally binding, it indicates general attitudes among the student population.
For a ban to occur, Student Congress would need to act on the referendum by forging an agreement between the Undergraduate Student Congress, Graduate Student Senate, the Executive Branch, the Faculty Senate and the Staff Senate, then getting approval by the Board of Regents, which controls university policy.
Matthew Gress, vice chairman of Undergraduate Student Congress, said the Problems and Projects Committee met with OU staff about the possible ban.
Jonathan Vann, chairman of the Problems and Projects Committee, said members of congress discussed with the staff how they might enforce a ban, costs of enforcing a ban and effects a ban may have on other areas, like whether smokers may just relocate to Campus Corner.
“The complicated problem right now is ... we are trying to find the best solution for everyone, because we don’t want to just say we’re banning smoking and then just have all the smokers just have tough luck, because we do need to take care of them,” Vann said.
But the referendum may not indicate accurate campus-wide attitudes, as faculty and staff did not vote. The Problems and Projects committee is trying to put together a survey to better judge the opinion of all people who use the campus, Vann said.
Different options currently under discussion are a complete ban of smoking on campus, a partial ban with designated smoking areas, a new attempt to enforce the current state law in an effort to appease those offended by smoking and to do nothing at all.
“Right now, I could see some kind of ban. Whether it’s a full ban or a partial ban, I don’t know,” Vann said.
Enforcing a ban would not be practical, said Kim Cole, a smoker.
“We don’t have the manpower,” said Cole, University College freshman. “You would have to have the campus cops do absolutely nothing except walking around enforcing the smoking ban, and it’s a waste of resources and a waste of personnel. It’s a waste of their time. They have more important things to be doing.”
Current state law imposes restrictions on smoking at least 25 feet from all building entrances. There are full bans on smoking at Oklahoma State University and at the OU Health Sciences Center.
Bryan Moyer, another smoker, said he understands why people would want laws restricting smoking in front of buildings. Moyer said he is willing to accommodate for those non-smokers who are bothered by cigarette smoke, but he would be bothered if there was a complete ban on smoking.
But Cole said she believes a complete ban on smoking would be too extreme.
“I would have no problem with designated smoking areas, provided that there were a sufficient number of them,” she said. “I mean you can’t just have two on a campus this size, but I think banning smoking on the campus entirely is a bit ridiculous.”
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
johnchimpo 2 years, 4 months ago
do you really think smoke in the open air is all that carcinogenic? its not, especially in comparison to all the gasoline fumes, pollens and allergens you are constantly inhaling. smokers have already been forced outside and now you think that the university should ban something which is legal, and encouraged (think of all the tax income the government receives from tobacco purchases), on both the federal and state level.
TAG 2 years, 4 months ago
This comes to show Student Congress can't do anything to protect us from even some of the most dangerous things like cancer. Boooo on Student Congress.
bashorney1 2 years, 4 months ago
Does anyone ever cite any scientific studies to support this second-hand smoke hysteria? No they don't and here's why:
(article by James P. Hogan)
Second-Hand Smoke Facts Reshaping Reality to Fit the Ideology
Although I'm not a smoker, back in 1998 I posted an item Politics Masquerading as Science siding with smokers against the fraudulent claims and manipulations of data being perpetrated by the EPA and other fundamentalists to make antismoking a moral crusade. Toren Smith sent me details of a site calling itself The Facts, where the shenanigans are finally fully available and posted.
"The EPA ignored more than half of the data. The EPA then doubled their margin of error to come up with their desired results. Even with all this manipulation, the numbers are still far too low to be considered statistically significant".
The EPA responded by ignoring him and adding it to their "Class A" carcinogens list anyway.
Link:
http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/bulletin.php?id=22
cacremin 2 years, 4 months ago
I'm getting tired of all these anti-smokers cramming their lifestyle down my throat. They already got their way-- there isn't a single building on the OU campus that allows smoking indoors, with the exception of a few smoker specific dormrooms/apartments. If the student body is so concerned with what's in the air outside, why not ban cars too?
whoisjohngalt 2 years, 4 months ago
Anti-Smoking Facade Crumbling
The conclusions of the following information coincides with the fact that the Ontario Liberal government's demoralizing, dictatorial smoke-free legislations make people emotionally/psychologically ill. Good emotional/psychological health makes physical health work, not the reverse.
'Councilman James Gennaro is introducing a bill to ban smoking in automobiles if a minor is present,' New York, August 15, 2007. Robert Madden, M.D., Former President of the New York Cancer Society wrote in The New York Sun, "He wants to control everyones behaviour. And he can't, he can only try. These efforts are based on data, both old and new, on the effects of secondhand smoke. This data is scientifically weak and controversial. The most recent example of this is found in the 2006 Surgeon General's report on the effects of secondhand smoke."
Also stated by Dr. Robert Madden, "To me the most offensive element of the smoking bans is the resort to science as "proving that environmental smoke, second-hand smoke, causes lung cancer." Not only is this unproven, but there is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for a scientist like myself, to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society, of which I am a member and the American Lung Association used to justify what is best described as a political agenda.
'Medical Journal critcizes WHO for neglecting evidence, The Associated Press, May 7, 2007.' When developing evidence-based guidelines, the World Health Organization routinely forgets one key ingredient: evidence. The medical journals (Lancet) criticism of WHO will shock many in the global health community, as one of WHO's main jobs is to produce guidelines on everything from fighting the spread of bird flu and malaria control to enacting anti-smoking legislation. WHO's director of research policy Dr. Tikki Pang said that some of the WHO colleagues were shocked by Lancet's study, but he acknowledged the criticism had merit, and explained that time pressures and a lack of both information and money sometimes compromised WHO work.
The actual result of the Liberal's "pet project," anti-smoking, is increased fear, anxiety, depression and therefore mental and physical illness. It affects smokers, their families, and other children whose minds are being preyed upon by constant government attempts to control their smoking behaviour.
Anti-smoking is not only a loss of rights...it is the foothold of Fascism! Do we care?
whoisjohngalt 2 years, 4 months ago
Government Will Make Smokers, Children, Families, Sick
Government's that foster anti-smoking policies lead the real health epidemic, government interference. They are not using science as their competent guide into the future. Instead they use the deep festering envy of politicized environmentalists (those unable to compete on a level playing field) to revisit remnants of the dark ages. The profound statement of philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand echoes the truth that smothers us, "Today, we live in the age of envy."
I am a life-long non-smoker, who has lost the four most precious people in my life. Cancer was the effect, a consequence, but not the cause. Yet, I will not help to propagandize health into dictatorial policy through anti-smoking. I do not wish to repeat the 1930's, 1940's. Do you?
Exactly how can our government "create a healthier society for all" when they betray the smoker's sense of trust, demoralize their self-confidence, disrupt their employer-employee relationships, upheave their family life, and undermind their efficacy by alienating them from their own human nature?
This destructive mind/body dichotomy will subject smoker's to long-term emotional and mental disorders, thus leading to serious physical ailments. In reality, our government is making them sick.
A particularily foreboding feature of the mind/body dichotomy is the government's suffocating negative influence while aggressively restricting young people from making their own decisions. Government aggression will severely jeopardize each young person's struggle to form a necessary sense of self-confidence. This fragile process is usually a traumatic experience, especially when that negative influence is hidden under the misconception of government benevolence.
In reality, our government lacks the knowledge of the trigger mechanism that sets off most cancers or most other major diseases to then become a critical danger for human beings. It is not smoking, nor second-hand smoke. Then why does government pathetically use smoker's as their scapegoat, perhaps they require an example in order to intimidate other industries?
Chicken Littleism is no longer a silly joke. It is now a snarling threat. Stamp out politicized environmentalism, not smokers.
JJanowiak 2 years, 4 months ago
It wouldn't be a good anti-smoking thread without a cultish Randite accusing healthy people of fascism.