For all who despise walking through clouds of smoke to go inside a building, some in ASUAF share that sentiment.

The student government recently passed legislation calling for the enforcement of the so-called "50-foot rule," which the resolution says requires people to not smoke within 50 feet of any building. But no group has stepped forward to enforce the policy. In fact, no one's sure if a 50-foot rule even exists.

The resolution to enforce the rule was written by Senate Chair Pat Frymark.

"It is my right to walk into a building and not breath secondhand smoke," he said. "We need to enforce the rule or make it go away."

Actually, it might not even exist. The rule referred to by the resolution isn't in regent regulations or the student code of conduct.

The only department with such a policy is Residence Life, and its rules limit smoking to within 30 feet. The only references to prohibiting smoking within 50 feet of buildings are in proposals before the Master Planning Committee.

It's not a rule most departments want to deal with anyway.

The police department says Residence Life should be responsible for it. Residence Life claims it doesn't have the staff to police it. The student government says the administration should crack down on it; the administration says that it should be purely a student effort.

So far, the student government has passed two resolutions about the rule, the first in the spring and second Oct. 3, calling for the enforcement of the rule.

Initially the student government proposed using community service officers (CSO) to enforce the rule, but the idea was shot down by Lt. Syrilyn Tong of the UAF Police Department.

"Originally they wanted CSO's, but CSO's are not trained to be in physically involved situations," Tong said.

Even if the police department were charged with enforcing the policy, the police couldn't do much about it, she said. Since no state or borough law exists on banning smoking, the police could only take administrative action.

"We can't enforce these kinds of rules under the criminal justice system," said Tong.

Residence Life Director Kevin Huddy is skeptical of the relevance of the resolution.

"The resolution doesn't change anything for us," he said. "The cigarette issue is very difficult to deal with."

Nevertheless, Huddy notices the mess that some smokers make.

"Cigarette butts are the bane of my existence. I would love to stop students from smoking near entryways," Huddy said. "But I would ask the students to enforce it themselves."

Chancellor Jones has told ASUAF that the rule is simply "unenforceable." Vice Chancellor Tim Barnett said "the only feasible way for the rule to work is if smokers and other students enforce it themselves."

Frymark, the resolution's sponsor, said the legislation is not meant to discourage smoking. He explained the resolution calls for the accommodation of smokers, not just the relocation of them.

"We realize that this resolution is not going to make everyone happy," he said. "The intention is to accommodate smokers, and not to upset anyone. That is the inevitable side effect."

Frymark brought up the idea of smoking huts, which would supposedly be heated and ventilated. While he said it's the most logical solution, he acknowledged smoking huts would probably be expensive.

Ventilated smoking huts could cost $30,000 to $100,000, according to David Miller, director of maintenance at Facility Services.

"That is something we would lobby the regents and the legislature for," Frymark said.