Editor,
In the article “Locations for tobacco use still hazy” in the Sept. 2 Daily Lobo, I noticed a couple errors of definition that I feel obligated to point out.
In the article, Pug Burge, chairwoman of the Smoke Free Environment Committee, is quoted as saying, “This whole drive has been about the promotion of a healthy campus.” If she means that by encouraging people not to smoke, then she’s right. However, she is speaking in reference to why the smoking areas are not marked. The areas not being marked leaves a chance that people would be prevented from smoking there. The proper phrasing would be “prevention of smoking on campus.”
She later is quoted as saying, “We have been somewhat conservative because we knew that once we identified designated smoking areas, it would be difficult to take them away.” She is right in the sense that when something is “designated,” it is hard to take away. That’s implied in the definition of “designated.” However, if a designated area is not marked or “pointed out,” it remains undesignated.
I am not defending smoking. I am defending linguistics. When someone uses words out of context, the integrity and intent suffer. I wish to grant the same courtesy to Burge that SHAC Health Education Manager Jessica Taylor Spurrier extended to smokers when she said, “This isn’t about … being mean to smokers.” Similarly, I am not trying to be mean to Burge over semantics. I just want a “promotion” of a healthy vocabulary.
Disgusting as the habit may be, UNM has stated in its policy that there will be 12 designated smoking areas for up to the next five years. I encourage the head of the Smoke Free Environment Committee to carry out its implicit policy.
Here’s a little “info-tainment” game: When people say they will do something and intentionally do not, they are said to be a) lying, b) unqualified to do their job, c) political or d) all of the above. Answer in the next issue.
Jason Liddell
UNM student
