Skip to main content

Senate Bill 10-11-40

Bill ID: 10-11-40
Name: Designated Smoking Areas
Proposed: 01/19/2011
Sponsor: Ariella Cohen, Colleges Against Cancer at UMD
Proposal: Presently, according to the University of Maryland Smoking Policy and Guideline, smoking is prohibited within 15ft of campus buildings due to the realization that a significant percentage of faculty, staff and students do not smoke and that smoke is offensive to many non-smokers, it is harmful and even debilitating to some individuals due to their physical condition, and there is evidence suggesting that passive smoke inhalation is harmful to non-smokers. This rule, however, is not enforced. Faculty, staff, and students, therefore, are forced to walk through hazardous clouds of smoke. Due to the known dangers associated with secondhand smoke, it is unreasonable to force the campus community's non-smokers to be subjected to this unsafe environment.

A system must be developed that will prevent non-smokers from being subjected to hazardous secondhand smoke. Designated smoking areas throughout the campus would still permit smokers to satisfy their needs, but will respect the wishes and rights of non-smokers to have clean air around them. Large signage throughout the campus is crucial in order to increase awareness. It is also imperative that the Resident Assistants and Campus Police understand the importance of enforcing this regulation.
Active? No
Related Bills:


Status

Status: Completed
Completed On: 02/24/2011

History

Status: Complete
Reviewer: Ariella Cohen, Proposer
Received: 2011-02-24
Decision: The letter was reviewed by the proposer.
Related Files:

Status: Complete
Reviewer: Senate Executive Committee (SEC)
Received: 2011-02-09
Decision Date: 2011-02-16
Decision: The SEC voted not to charge a committee with review of the proposal.
Actions: At its meeting on February 16, 2011, the SEC discussed the similarity of the current proposal to Senate bill 08-09-15, "Proposal for a Tobacco-Free Campus" reviewed by the Campus Affairs Committee in academic years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. The SEC agreed that the implications of the proposals bore enough similarity that an additional review of the topic was not warranted. The SEC voted not to charge a committee with review of the proposal and to send a letter to the proposer explaining its decision.
Next Step: Review by Proposer
Related Files:
Back to Top