Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Letters to the Editor

Published: Monday, June 20, 2011

Updated: Monday, June 20, 2011 18:06

In response to the June 16 editorial "Don't fund the smoking ban."

I am puzzled by the stance The Oracle has taken on the partial smoking ban in the last few months.  While the majority of students, faculty and other interested parties have shown support through surveys and Student Government elections, The Oracle is grasping at straws by claiming the ban is not a proper use of funds.  

Where was the editorial board the last few years when millions of dollars were appropriated for new athletic facilities, building renovations and campus beautification? Students had no input on many of these things, all while various funding sources, state and private, were generally dropping.

Pickled vegetables and car emissions may very well be valid threats to the health of students, but no one is forced to eat or inhale these items as they try to walk into the Library.  

Students currently pay a variety of fees to attend this University, and it would be worthwhile to take a look at how our mandatory health fee — $9.73 per credit hour starting in the fall — is spent and offer more smoking cessation programs. It would be a worthwhile investment into the health of the student population.

Toby Thomson is a junior majoing in biology.

Sulfur is one of the main ingredients found in all smoke, including cigarette smoke. The chemical causes allergic reaction in many people around the world. I am one of the many who are allergic and are being forced to continue to smell the smoke of cigarettes all over campus.

I was thrilled to read about the ban on cigarettes coming to our school. However, when I read the article in Thursday's paper I encountered the worst article I  have ever read in The Oracle.

I am all for other's opinions, but whoever wrote this article didn't inform the reader with correct information and also left out a lot of other contributing factors. The fact is you can get cancer from second-hand smoke much faster than from consuming pickles.

It's pathetic that someone needs to compare cigarette consequences to consuming pickles on sandwiches — consuming cigarette smoke is more easily avoided. People should have a choice to not be around it.

I doubt that there wouldn't be any funding for a ban trying to prevent cancer from endangering people who aren't asking for it. An article about the new soccer stadium in the same edition talked about the couple the stadium was named after, who solely donated $1.5 million to the USF Athletic Department.

If this kind of act is possible I think a ban, wished for by the majority of USF in President Judy Genshaft's survey, is certainly possible!   

 As a frequent reader of The Oracle, I ask that you print a much more intelligent article discussing the possibility that this ban should be pursued much more. Many would agree that our health is much more important  than a soccer stadium.

Jackie French is a junior majoring in marine biology.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

Be the first to comment on this article!





log out