Video: On the "Mark" for June 30, 2012 read more
Tribune contributing columnist Mark Scarp shares his opinion on issues in the East Valley. Read his column in Sunday's East Valley Tribune.
Scarp: Colleges should lead by example, not by fiat
Tribune contributing columnist Mark Scarp shares his opinion on issues in the East Valley. Read his column in Sunday's East Valley Tribune.
Welcome to the discussion.
-
Current users sign in here.
12 comments:
Rules of Conduct
© Copyright 2013, East Valley Tribune, Tempe, AZ. [Terms of Use | Privacy Policy]
A Division of 10/13 Communications
domusrex posted at 2:17 pm on Sun, Jul 1, 2012.
Having been a student at both MCC and ASU I enthusiastically embrace the ban. In fact, I signed a petition at ASU for it to become smoke free.
In the article, the columnist came up with the statistic that 95% of the campus population are adults. Not sure where he got this statistic so I'll throw out another one...of those 95%, we'll say 80% are over 21 and thus allowed to drink. Why can't those adults over 21 be allowed to bring their alcohol on campus and consume it?
I'm not comparing alcohol drinking to smoking tobacco, but I am pointing out that there is precedent for legal substances to be banned from public campuses.
All of the Banner Hospitals and even Phoenix Children's hospital (I'm sure others too, but I've worked at these ones) have a ban on tobacco use on campus. Yes they even call their property a "campus." Does the author want to overturn those bans because adults should be allowed to use a legal product wherever they want?
If you have ever been on ASU's campus, chances are you have been stuck walking behind someone who has lit up a cigarette. Sometimes you are walking the smoke for a few hundred yards. Irritating at the least and asthma exacerbating at the worst if you are a non-smoker.
Although I think the ban over 16 oz sugary drinks is a little much, I don't think that is legislating morality. We have a real endemic of obesity and other diseases like diabetes in this country because of our high caloric diets. Public awareness really isn't changing that either. Personally I hope they ban the 44 oz at Circle K. I drink way too much diet Dr. Pepper. Also I do wish that the restaurants here would put their calories on the menu like they do in California. This would allow adults make better informed decisions.
geekette posted at 2:46 pm on Sun, Jul 1, 2012.
There's a major difference between smoking and drinking a 44 oz slurpee: the smoker forces everyone around him or her to smoke. The slurpee drinker affects no one else. Try walking up the outdoor stairwells at any campus building. You have to make your way through clouds of smoke, walking ankle-deep in discarded butts. Non-smokers cannot sit outside on nice days without becoming smokers, against their will. No, banning smoking is not nanny-state legislation, but banning oversized drinks is.
Masterrogue666 posted at 6:47 pm on Sun, Jul 1, 2012.
I agree that if you wish to smoke, you have that right. However, the problem is that it took YEARS for those who didn't wish to smoke (or be subject to 2nd hand smoke) to get THAT RIGHT observed. However, there are still those smokers that continue to ignore that fact.
mesadog posted at 7:52 pm on Sun, Jul 1, 2012.
I agree with Mark on this issue and so far the first three opinions only show support for the nanny state. you have choices to make on what you do with your life. If you require the government to legislate every aspect of your and everyone else's life because you are too lazy to decide for yourself or can't respect others rights to do something you may not agree with - I pity you. I tend to think the descriptions of the smoking on campus is exaggerated but that is okay - it is how you see it. Many non-smokers (I do not BTW) are very self righteous about it. As for the drinks. No one is putting a gun to your head making you buy a 44oz drink. Grow up, be an adult and buy a smaller one. Or better yet, don't, drink water, black coffee or tea. I do believe there is a growing need by people to be taken care of by the government and willing to give up all their rights and basic decision making in the process. Be careful what you ask for.
mscarp posted at 11:23 pm on Sun, Jul 1, 2012.
Mark Scarp here. Thanks for your comments, folks. I prefer proper "time, place and manner" restrictions that respect individual rights but majority rule. Reader domusrex wonders why I can advocate allowing smoking on campus when those of drinking age can't drink on campus. My reply is, why shouldn't alcohol be permitted under certain strictures? I see nothing wrong with responsible use of alcohol by those at least age 21 in designated areas ("time, place and manner"), which means that like smoking, drinking has no place in a classroom, but drinking might at a social function or even at a sporting event, just as smoking might in a designated away-from-others area. Why ban something like alcohol entirely because a few people behave badly?
That's why designated smoking areas are a good compromise. Smokers may light up in a separate place from the lungs of nonsmokers.
And stronger penalties and enforcement should indeed be present to keep areas free of cigarette butts, as reader geekette points out. I also note that litter has many disgusting forms, including tossed soft drink cups. We should no more ban cigarettes because a minority of smokers toss them wrongfully and illeglaly on the ground any more than we should ban soft drinks because some people toss cups on the ground as well.
Arizona Willie posted at 7:18 am on Mon, Jul 2, 2012.
I don't see banning smoking on campus as legislating morality.
It is a public health measure.
They are not saying it is morally wrong to smoke.
They are saying it hurts other people when you decide to smoke in a public place, so you can't do that.
It's the old principle that you have the right to swing your arm as much as you want to -- until it comes to someone's nose.
You have to right to smoke in your home if you so choose.
You don't have the right to smoke where other people inhale the smoke and it affects their health and comfort.
If you want to destroy your own health -- that's your business as long as you do it where it doesn't have an effect on others.
No morality involved.
Just public health and the rights of others to NOT smoke secondhand smoke.
chuckles3 posted at 8:20 am on Mon, Jul 2, 2012.
Sigh...AZ Willie your argument falls apart very quickly....."you have a right to smoke in your home if you choose"....but what if you have a baby?Or kids with Asthma? What if you live in an apartment complex and your neighbors smell the smoke?
Very easily the government can step in there next.
And for all you health nuts, if smoking is so bad, why doesn't your nanny state make it illegal? Oh yea, the BILLIONS in taxes they collect.
BTW, never smoked, think it is a filthy, disgusting habit.
Arizona Willie posted at 9:29 am on Mon, Jul 2, 2012.
chuckes3, no it doesn't.
Your home ( even if an apartment ) is your property and you have the right to do as you please ( within the law -- no meth lab or whorehouse for example ).
If you have children, until they reach the age of majority you have to right to impose their living circumstances on them.
If you choose to smoke around your kids, well that may say something about the kid of person you are.
Why doesn't the state make it illegal?
Mostly because of lessons learned from prohibition and the drug war.
Making things illegal just funnels money to criminals.
And, allowing people to smoke if they choose to ( in the privacy of their own living space ) puts chlorine in the gene pool. It helps to weed out the terminally stupid.
BTW I was a 2 pack a day smoker for 40+ years.
I swore they would bury me with a carton and a lighter.
I LOVED my smokes.
Even today I will catch myself reaching for my shirt pocket once in awhile.
I know how hard it is to quit.
ragdoll posted at 10:55 am on Mon, Jul 2, 2012.
If Glasper is choosing to improve peoples health, shouldn't he be banning meat from campus? After all, he is trying to lead by example. If he is a real educator, he would know the harm of eating meat. Is Glasper banning cigerettes because he doesn't smoke and not meat because he eats it?
Tobacco users can get lung and throat cancers. Meat-eaters face a higher risk of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, kidney disease, osteoporosis, and obesity. Natural carnivores can eat lots of animal fat without getting heart attacks, but humans can’t. People who avoid animal protein also have dramatically lower rates of prostate, colon, and breast cancer.
Which is risker? Meat or tobacco? What will Glasper do next? I hope the right thing to prove he is actually educated.
Engaged Voter posted at 12:22 pm on Mon, Jul 2, 2012.
I've said it before, but it bears repeating:
"As an educational institution, we have an obligation to lead the way in matters of health awareness and education,” - MCCCD
Either MCCCD stops selling all unhealthy, sugary snack-type foods IMMEDIATELY...or they've just revealed themselves to be nothing more than filthy liars and hypocrites.
They COULD have chosen morality, but they CHOSE to make it a health/education issue. Now they need to follow through.
mrconservative posted at 10:44 pm on Mon, Jul 2, 2012.
Tell me, EV, do you support vouchers? School choice?
Leon Ceniceros posted at 6:17 am on Tue, Jul 3, 2012.
BAN SMOKING BUT LET SOCIALISM AND SEPARATISM RUN RAMPANT ON CAMPUS = BOY, DOES THAT EVER MAKE SENSE.
DON'T BELEIVE ME....JUST GOT THROUGH WATCHING THE....MARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE......BLACK-AMERICAN GRADUATION SERVICE COMPLETE WITH AFRICAN STYLE GRADUATION STOLES.....THEN IT WAS THE TURN OF THE .....YUP, YOU GUESSED IT.......THE HISPANIC-AMERICAN AND THE NATIVE-AMERICAN (SEPARATE BUT EQUAL....ISN'T THAT THE SAME TERM THAT BIGOTS IN THE SOUTH USED ABOUT SEGREGATED SCHOOLS....LOL). THE HISPANIC-AMERICAN GRADUATES HAD THEIR "SERAPE" WOVEN GRADUATION STOLES AND THE NATIVE-AMERICANS HAD THEIR "INDIAN BLANKET WOVEN GRADUATION STOLES.....
HOW MUCH MORE LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE/SOCIALIST CAN YOU GET WHEN YOU........................SEGREGATE YOUR COLLEGE'S GRADUATION CEREMONIES ALONG...............RACIAL....AND ETHNIC LINES.
I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED PATRIOTIC HOLIDAYS LIKE THE 4TH OF JULY, MEMORIAL DAY OR VETERAN'S DAY........BANNED BY OUR LOCAL COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN THE FUTURE.
THEY ARE PROBABLY CONSIDERING A WAY TO BAN ACTIVE DUTY/RESERVE/NATIONAL GUARD WARRIORS FROM WEARING THEIR "WAR-MONGERING" UNIFORMS ON CAMPUS..........AS WE SPEAK.