Senate Forum on the Tobacco Ban
The recently announced tobacco ban has been an extremely controversial subject over the past week. As a result, on Wednesday at 9:30 in DUC 276, Senate will be holding an open forum to discuss student opinion regarding the ban. We will also discuss the appropriate response to both the ban itself and the process by which the decision was made. This will directly follow a presentation from Executive Vice Chancellor Hank Webber at 9PM, in which he will address the state of sustainability at WashU and the delay in presenting the university's Strategic Sustainability Plan. We will begin the forum with about 15 minutes of gauging student response to the ban, but the majority of the time will focus on figuring out the appropriate response while taking student input at the same time.
Therefore, to ensure every interested student's voice is heard, please post your opinions on the ban here as well (we've read comments from the previous posts regarding the ban too). Senate will be reading every one of them, and take them into account when we decide on a plan of action on Wednesday.
I cannot speak for Senate as a whole, but I am personally alarmed by the process through which the decision to ban tobacco was made. Contrary to some reports, Senate and Student Union as a whole were not consulted for this decision and were not part of the process. Compromise and widespread student engagement (beyond just SU) in such an important decision are critical, and it is essential to ensure that we students have a voice in the choices that affect our lives.
All material is copyright © 2009 Washington University in St. Louis unless otherwise noted. For additional information or to provide feedback, contact the webmaster.
Comments
As a non-smoker who has friends who are smokers, I feel that this is an unnecessary restriction solely for the sake of the University's image. Banish smokers to some designated area of the campus if you want, but it is ridiculous to prevent students from making a choice to consume a legal substance in their place of residence-- no different from prohibiting students who are of-age from drinking on campus. As long as smokers are in the open air and away from high-traffic areas like the doorways of buildings, I can't see any reasonable purpose for this ban beyond proving how "progressive" WashU is.
I'm shocked that the student body had so little say in the smoking ban, but I am also confused by what seems to be a general apathy on campus. I don't know if the university tried to keep the smoking ban on the D-L, it seem so given that many people I talk to are not aware of it, or if people feel like they don't have a way to effect change or counter the university's (unilateral?) decisions.
I don't smoke, and very few of my friends smoke, and oddly I think the ban would affect university employees more than the student body and wonder if the university has considered what demographic has the largest number of smokers on campus.
I'm also curious about how it would be enforced and whether the student body feels that however the university enforces it, it would be a good use of their tuition money. I certainly don't want my/my parents money going towards keeping adults from smoking a legal substance outside (which is an infringement on 1st amendment rights,) even if the university feels like banning smoking would improve their image.
I agree with above comments. Also, the University has not made very clear what their goals are in this campaign, nor shown evidence, therefore, that this smoking ban will accomplish any real, tangible goal. If the goal is getting people to quit, there are far better way to go about it. If it's to somehow "clean up their image," students should have a say in how the university seeks to portray them to the world. Either way, it is our college experience, and no one paid tens of thousands of dollars to be policed in such ridiculous matters.
I am a non-smoker, and I hate having to walk through clouds of smoke on campus. It aggravates my allergies, and I have friends with asthma who are even more adversely affected by peope smoking in front of buildings. I think it is an unhealthy, expensive, and disgusting habit, but I also somewhat agree with the prior posts.
First of all, the fact that University employees will be adversely affected is an item of great concern: these people work hard for us, and with the short breaks that they are allowed, forcing them to go off campus to smoke seems unjust. Additionally, much as I despise smoking, I recognize students' right to do it. These two factors combined with what seems to me to be the complete unenforceability of a smoking ban lead me to believe that the more appropriate course of action would be to designate specific isolated smoking areas on campus rather than implementing a full-fledged ban. Considering that the University has already failed to enforce the current policy (which states that smokers must stand a certain distance from the doors of buildings), the ban seems a bit ambitious anyway. Perhaps if the University simply enforced the current policy a similar goal (with fewer negative ramifications) would be accomplished.
It saddens me how many problems we, as a school and as a country even, try to solve by creating new rules when we have perfectly good old rules we could simply enforce better.
Could we make some sort of designated smoking rooms (like they have at some airports) that are close to campus hotspots (eg. whispers, DUC, art/arch campus, wohl, etc)?
To design such a room would be a great interdisciplinary design project - the smoke-filled air could be channeled and used for something productive, like growing algae or something else that is creative and innovative, instead of just being carried "away".
Additionally, there could be information and resources in these smoking areas about the dangerous health effects of smoking, and resources to help people quit, for those who might be interested. With some sort of creative solution along these lines, the university shows its commitment to student health, freedom of choice, and concern for our welfare, as well as its flexibility and accomodation of students' needs.
Please expand on these ideas!
Recently the School of Architecture announced a competition to redesign the first floor of Olin. I am not sure if the winner's design will actually be considered, however, I think these sort of sponsored events would be much more constructive (no pun intended) if geared towards projects like you suggest. Why not have the architecture, engineering, biology (etc...) majors design smoking rooms on campus? That sounds fantastic! And the Samfox school already seems open to the idea of student design.
I do support banning smoking on campus, but without an alternative for smokers it seems not only implausible, but also unfair.
I agree that forcing people who need to smoke to go off campus seems unfair, especially the hardworking staff here. However, I would hope that the student government does not put itself in opposition to the ban simply because of not being included in the decision making process. I think that moving to end smoking on campus will overall be beneficial to the health and happiness of everyone on campus, and though I don't entirely agree with the exact process and implementation that the University is going through to get there, I think this step is in the right direction and shouldn't be shot down based on some of the difficulties. The benefits outweigh those problems.
As to limiting people's freedom, it is true that many people who smoke voluntarily will have their freedom to do so impinged upon. However, many people have been deprived of personal choice through smoking addiction, so both banning and allowing smoking have problems with interfering with people's free will.
And just to provoke some thought: it has always seemed questionable to me to what extent a person has the right to fill the air everyone else is breathing with harmful smoke. It's not legal on indoor public property, so why should it be different outdoors? The effects are the same, just less intense and more dispersed.
I see several issues with the smoking ban.
1. It's a little ridiculous to ban a legal, addictive habit. Our campus pride itself in being open minded to different lifestyles...unless of course its a lifestyle that we don't agree with. It's unnerving how close minded our campus can be in its quest to be progressive. Smoking may not be a great habit but it is a legal and personal choice.
2. Many students on our campus come from countries where smoking is much more socially accepted. To ask international students to move to a different country, start speaking a foreign language, and give up a very addicting habit as soon as they arrive is unreasonable!
3. Providing designated areas on campus for smoking is also a miserable idea. It will only divide our student body. To create a designated space would end up being very detrimental; aka to seperate into a group of people with a "gross habit" and people who don't have that habit.
It is about time that they ban smoking on campus. While there are rules that prohibit smoking in front of the entryways to various buildings,it has been my experience that smokers have no respect for these rules; almost every day, I am forced to wade through a cloud of smoke just to enter and exit my dorm. As has already been stated, this is disgusting and unhealthy and is even worse for those who suffer from asthma. If there are concerns about the smokers, then let the University still ban smoking while designating certain areas on campus where smokers can feed their addictions without impacting others.
In response to some of the comments above, the University is well within its rights to prohibit smoking on campus. The University is a private institution and, as such, can restrict the activities that occur on its property. If I remember correctly, there is nothing in the first amendment to defend smoking, and the ridiculous claim that it would infringe on first amendment rights is quite clearly disproven by the many state-wide, city-wide, and district-wide smoking bans which prohibit smoking in public areas. There is no reason to believe that this measure will cost the University anything, especially if violators of the ban are fined. This measure will improve not only the University's image, but also the quality of life on campus.
As a non-smoker with several wonderful friends who smoke, I consider it unproductive to refer to smoking as a "disgusting" habit done by people who need to "feed their addiction." What is disgusting is a matter of personal opinion, and arguing this way serves only to create a divide between people on campus, not solve the issues being raised by this ban. How would you feel if someone made a blanket statement about your morality or cleanliness based on something you did not find disgusting?
I completely agree. It seems to me that individuals are so concerned with respecting the rights of smokers that they are forgetting to respect the rights of non-smokers. For those of us who do not smoke, it is annoying to have to hold one's breath to avoid inhaling second-hand smoke while walking to class, and it IS "disgusting" to unexpectedly inhale it every time one wants to walk into Olin library because the smell lingers.
I feel the problem here is that most smokers do not respect those around them that do not smoke. Alternatively, I do understand that it is asking a great deal for an individual to leave campus just to smoke. That is why I do agree with the suggestions to designate certain places for smoking.
I am a non-smoker and do not support the smoking ban on campus. I am not in favor of the University making lifestyle choices for the student body. This feeling is compounded by the unilaterial way in which the Administration decided to make campus 'smoke free.'
Students have the right to smoke outdoors, on campus if they so choose. There should be a level of common courtesy when it comes to smokers and non-smokers, but while some non-smokers/health advocates may not like it, the University is crossing the line on this decision. There is only so far that the administration can go in placing regulations on the students/faculty and staff. Telling people that they cannot smoke is just too much.
I am just as frustrated with this unilateral smoking ban, as I am with the big show the university makes about student input on tuition increases every year and then how the administration completely ignores student input and does what it wants anyway, The time has definitely come to send a message to the University that they need to start respecting the students and stop treating us as cattle they are raising.
- Frustrated
I'm a non-smoker, and because of a history of some bad parenting by an ex step-father, when I smell smoke I get claustrophobic and nervous. I appreciate that some people like to smoke, that off campus is too long a walk, and that SU is upset for being left out of the loop. All of these problems can be remedied while still leaving me, anyone else who feels like I do, and our environments smoke free.
None of my ideas are new. I write simply to add my voice and to organize general thoughts. While smoking rooms would be perfect for me, I suspect they represent a less than ideal solution for the smokers themselves. Instead, simply enforcing the restriction to smoking further away from all doorways and not at general public events (think the last couple weekends) would be generous enough for me to call it a fair compromise. I understand that some who want to walk around campus may be upset at the iea of still having to walk by a smoker. However, this isn't a fair conclusion. If I'm on a field playing soccer, another person cannot come onto the field and relax where I am playing. Soccer is my hobby. Why should smoking be any different? Please answer that question constructively if you have an answer.
My reason for staying away from doorways? Smoke is dangerous to others, those with asthma, breathing difficulty, an aversion to smoke, or bad habit breeding (if one is trying to quit and they see others regularely, it can be harder for them <-- unproven, only a guess). Doorways are some of the most traveled routes for pedestrians. Finally, the trash. The amount of trash is absolutely disgusting.
I slipped on my way into my dorm building 3 weeks ago. Surprised, I twisted my head back over my shoulder to see what had caused me to fall. A blanket of cigarettes lay like a rotten brown oil on top of the soil and cement that constitute the entryway to Koenig house.
Of course, that I fell was my own problem. With some better coordination and an ounce of attention I could've stayed up and not made a fool of myself. This isn't about that; this is about the littering issue. I brought the problem up with my RCD, who moved quickly to solve the issue by placing another cigarette butt stand by the door. This one was more obvious, and the issue was cleaned up fairly well. There is still some trash, but I didn't come to a dorm house looking for perfection.
I'm not a smoker, so I can't imagine how this is going to feel for you all who are being affected directly by this new rule. However, I ask you to consider those who have to deal with your habits on a daily basis because their classes force them to go into certain buildings. Please, just stand away from the doors and throw away your litter!
Thanks,
Ben
The problem is an issue of choice. The university is deciding to take away a choice (one made legal by the government of our country) for general health reasons. I am a nonsmoker, yet still completely outraged. How could the university feel that this is appropriate? People are very aware of the risks of smoking, yet they still do it. That is fine. That is what they choose to do in their private lives.
The end result of this is going to be a boat load of problems with students trying to smoke, getting caught, etc. We shouldn't be driving this activity underground, that's just silly. This will not stop people from smoking, it will just result in more problems for smokers and those issuing citations for smokers.
As an addendum, students should always be warned and allowed a voice in social matters that directly affect them. If, say, wash u decided to make all dorms single sex, they would never go about doing this without asking the student body first. Why should this social matter be dealt with in any different way?
I understand that smoking is a "lifestyle choice," but it is one that is not self-contained--smoking in public areas, even outdoor public areas, imposes that lifestyle choice on others. Given that, and given that the smoking ban was instituted in the interest of public health, I see no reason why Student Union would or should have been involved. Would we, for example, have expected to be given a voice by the administration when considering a new stop sign placed on campus to protect pedestrians, or a new traffic flow pattern for one of the campus parking lots? No, of course not, because student convenience is irrelevant when the issue at hand is public safety.
I'm a non-smoker and I oppose this ban. If the rationale is forcing a lifestyle choice on someone, then that is disgusting, much more disgusting than smoking. If the rationale is preventing annoyance to others on campus, I think it would be much more reasonable to create a policy of no smoking near doorways as has been suggested elsewhere on this board.
That being said, the University has the right to do whatever it wants with its campus and we have the right as students to stay or leave as we please. We are customers of Wash U, we can request additional services, but we have no "right" to them.
Obviously though, we should let the university know our opinion on the issue. It gives them a chance to better tailor what they offer us and allows them the ability to keep our loyalty as students and also, hopefully, the ability to better attract new ones.
So, here is one customer who would prefer no ban.
While I am a non-smoker and this issue does not directly affect me, I could not disagree more with the University's policy. Although one can see the logic in banning indoor smoking and limiting the areas on campus where one can smoke for reasons associated with second-hand smoke, a campus-wide ban is simply outrageous. Further: what sort of affect will this have some prospective students to the University? For a non-smoker, I cannot see a tobacco-free campus as being a strong selling point as to why they would choose to attend WashU; it is simply not a big issue. However, for those that do smoke, this could have a strong effect on talented students choosing to study elsewhere as a result of this ban.
I am also a non-smoker. Bravo and ditto. Smoking is a lifestyle for some and I see no reason to ban the product entirely. Sure, make zones, but don't force an addict to run across the street off campus to go get a fix. Also, how will non-student/ faculty visitors feel? Are you going to tell a visiting executive presenter in the business school to please leave? How about a donor at a University event or dinner? We are used to non-smoking buildings, but even airports have smoking areas. Come now, be reasonable.
This is a pathetic attempt by the University to appear at the cutting edge of persecuting smokers. I'm telling my parents not to give the University another cent in donations, and I'm certainly not giving any money.
This will only force smokers to smoke indoors, where there is a real danger of a fire - when people or their stuff goes up in smoke, I hope they sue the University for every penny it has in its bloated endowment.
<!--[if gte mso 10]> <![endif]-->I'm a non-smoker and regardless of exactly how the decision was made or whatnot, I agree with the university ban on tobacco. All personal feelings aside about the personal choice or how disgusting or not the habit is, I think that smoking affects everyone whether they choose to smoke or not. Hospitals, shopping malls (open or closed malls), and other facilities reserve the right to ban smoking; why shouldn’t the university have the same right? I believe that the administration can make such a call.
Yet, even if we consider the student voices, it is evident to see that many non-smokers feel that the smoking affects them as well. I’m not trying to be insensitive to other people’s choices, but I do have a problem when they affect me as well. To be honest, the worst part of the spring and summer weather is having to walk to class in the midst of three cigarettes around you, or having to cross the smoke-wall to walk into the library. Even if the ban was not in place, there are certain common sense modifications that could be made to make this habit less intrusive in the lives of everyone.
What you fail to realize is that this bans every form of tobacco, not just cigarettes. Why should I not be allowed to use chewing tobacco, snus or a pipe on my own time? Surely I would not be doing these things outside of buildings. chewing tobacco and snus are well contained habits that affect no one. And if the spit from chewing tobacco grosses you out, then you understand how I feel about the habit of chewing gum and finding it under desks and chairs.
Why should I not be allowed to recreationally enjoy something like a cigar or smoke my pipe outside at 9 pm, after a long day of classes? I'm not by the door, blowing smoke on people, I'm not forcing anyone into anything, unless they demand to come over to me.
I agree that perhaps it would be wiser to create smoking zones, or prohibit smokers from being directly outside of doors, but to ban tobacco campus wide is a ludicrous proposal.
There, that's my rational response. I'm very proud of myself.
I completely agree with Mr. Ares that the University has the right to impose a smoking ban, and is making the right decision by doing so. What I think many people are failing to consider is that smoking is not just an annoyance to others on campus like body odor or flatulence - secondhand smoke is extremely harmful to the health of any nonsmokers who accidentally inhale it. Personally, I feel that I have been exposed to more secondhand smoke walking in and out of Olin Library for the past four years than I did in the previous 18 years of my life combined. As someone who has lost relatives to lung cancer and other smoke-related illnesses, I consider avoiding cigarette smoke essential to my health. I think that the University is trying to protect the health of the members of the Wash U community, not dictate lifestyle choices. That said, I think it makes sense to have designated smoking rooms so that smokers don't have to go off campus. This seems like a reasonable compromise that protects the health of non-smokers without terribly inconveniencing smokers.
I'd also like to comment that this sort of University policy is not exactly cutting-edge in this country. In my state, two of our state schools with over 40,000 students have gone tobacco free, and it was less controversial there than we are making it here. Even my home town has gone smoke free - no smoking in public places. Public and private schools that my friends attend have strict (enforced) no-alcohol policies and don't allow opposite-sex visitors in dorms after 8PM. Seriously, we are able to do pretty much whatever we want here in our dorms as well as on main campus, and this one measure to protect our health isn't asking too much, in my opinion.
A reply to each of you in turn:
Mr. Ares; 7:06: 1. You make the assumption that Malls (Hospitals aren't a very good example because smoking in Hospitals is likely to cause an explosion, whereas on campus it is not) should have the right to ban smoking. Could you please back this up?
2. Your major gripe seems to be having to walk near smokers, but fail to say why or prove that those reasons are logically legitimate. Would it be equally fair for me to take your sentences and replace "smokers" with "ugly people" or "flatulent people?" Why or why not?
Anonymous;6:20: We both know that the damage caused by day-to-day second hand smoke is not at all similar to the damage caused by being hit by a car. I would equate the damage caused by walking by the library at lunch to be somewhere in between getting as much sleep as an Architecture student and eating at Bears Den.
Mr. Marks;4:32: 1. I'm sorry to hear that the smell of smoke makes you uncomfortable. My abusive manny (male nanny) always wore a green knit sweater and whenever I see someone wearing a green knit sweater I get really nervous, so of course I understand what you're going through and hope you'll join me when I push campus-wide banning of green knit sweaters.
2. If you are at a park field someone can absolutely come and relax where you're playing.
3. Smoking may affect asthma, but so, again, does the sight of a green knit sweater affect me. People talking in Whispers makes it harder for me to concentrate on my studying just like smoke might make it harder to breath. And assuming your theory of quitting is true, I'd like there to be a campus wide ban on drinking for the alcoholics sake.
4. The amount of trash has nothing to do with the smoke. That'd be like banning gum because of all the gum on the sidewalk or under desks. Hell, lets ban everything that produces trash. Your slipping was the fault of that particular smoker, not the legality of smoking. I'd firmly support you on a campus-wide littering ban.
Mr. Safyan;11:56: If you believe it is fair to ban something just because it is disgusting and unhealthy, can we ban Half&Halfs? But seriously, can we ban the use of automobiles for the exhaust they produce?
Mr. Safyan's Anonymous Replier: It is just as annoying to have to sharply inhale when I walk by someone with bad BO. A campus-inforced showers for all!
- Love and Peace
<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]--><!--[if !mso]>
<! st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } --> <!--[endif]--><!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:AR-SA;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --><!--[if gte mso 10]> <! /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} --> <!--[endif]-->Anonymous 8:16pm
1. Thanks for your comments. You are right about the hospitals, but malls, airports, and other public spaces can enforce smoking bans. Although there are currently no federal regulations, local Codes of Ordinances and (in some cases) even State Ordinances allow for such bans to occur (Missouri state has no statewide ban). While I don’t know the current legal status of WashU, my point was that smoking bans in public areas is not a new or illegal/unconstitutional thing.
2. I thought my complain about walking near smokers was sort of self-explanatory, but I can provide a rationale. You have the right to smoke. And I have the right not to. But what happens when your right to smoke and do whatever you want to your lungs begins to inescapably affect my lungs (and my right not to smoke)? Furthermore, I don’t think it would be fair to replace “smokers” with “flatulent people” in my sentences because while flatulence can be disgusting/annoying/(or whatever adjective you want to put here), it does not inflict significant, detrimental effects to my health. I’m not arguing for comfort here, I’m trying to keep my body healthy.
It is worth to mention that yes, my major gripe is having to walk in clouds of smoke. I don’t know if you would agree with me on this, but I believe that designating secluded, well-ventilated smoking areas would make us both happier. Smokers would not need to go off-campus to smoke; non-smokers could walk on a smoke-free campus.
I have a question: would this ban prevent smoking on all university property, including off-campus housing and such?
I am a part of steering committee for Relay For Life here at WashU. Because of our affiliation with the American Cancer Society, communicating with the University to raise awareness of tobacco on campus is one of our priorities.
It is worth noting that the University has planned all along to implement a ban on tobacco for some years before it was actually announced last week. This was common knowledge among the administration and was readily shared with anyone who happened to inquire about the University's tobacco policy. Whether or not this was indeed the best way to handle the PR for current students is another issue, but for anyone who bothered to ask the questions the impending ban was certainly no big secret.
From a research perspective, I've been having diffuculty finding many reputable published studies of the exact effects of outdoor secondhand smoke. The independent variables would be the number of cigarettes, the distance from the cigarette, and different types of weather. The dependent variables would be the amount of secondhand smoke that could be inhaled and it's resulting health risks.
The fact is that unlike well supported arguments against indoor smoking, outdoor smoking clearly has a less conclusive body of literature discussing how dangerous it is. Questions like what percentage of toxins a non smoker will inhale compared to the toxins inhaled by a smoker are far from being adequatley addressed. It is likley that second hand smoke be dangerous,but to a much smaller degree than indoor smoke, and very well may be negatable. WashU also has I believe less smokers than the national average, making the effects even less noticiable. Evidence does strongly support that second hand smoke indoor and outdoor has a stronger effect on children, another concern for the general population, but not so much for this university.
The fact that the unversity charged ahead despite lack of research gives me a sense that this was rather an emotional decision than a knowlegable one. I think for many students supporting the ban this is an emotional subject for them, seeing that it is unlikley they are knowledgable of the real effects of outdoor secondhand smoke. When the idea of the ban was announced, I could sense a strong self-rightous pride in the decision.
From a legal prespective, this is a private university that holds the right to do pretty much whatever it wants. The only thing mildly holding them back is the students getting very angry at them, so that is what we should do if we want to stop this smoking ban.
Anonymous: "3. Smoking may affect asthma, but so, again, does the sight of a green knit sweater affect me. People talking in Whispers makes it harder for me to concentrate on my studying just like smoke might make it harder to breath. And assuming your theory of quitting is true, I'd like there to be a campus wide ban on drinking for the alcoholics sake."
There is a difference between not liking the way something looks and having a legitimate health concern. In addition, if the talking in Whispers bothers you, you can easily move to a quiet area of the library. It is not necessary for you to study in Whispers. On the contrary, it is necessary for people to enter and exit buildings, and people who smoke directly outside of doorways aggravate health problems.
I am curious as to how the University plans to enforce this ban, as current policies are not enforced. While it is a personal choice to smoke, it should be everyone's right to breath clean, smoke-free air. I do not agree with the smoking ban on all University property, but I do think that it should be limited to specific, low-traffic areas that non-smokers can choose to avoid.
Whatever it takes to get the smokers away from in front of the library. It's gross and I have to walk through it. That said people who choose to use tobacco products should be allowed to do so if they want, just maybe in less crowded areas.
Also, I hate seeing dropped cigarette butts on the ground (or any type of litter). It seems like some groups of smokers don't care if they smoke in public places and make me choke on their unholy fumes. Then when they are done suffocating us all, they toss their trash on the ground. Certainly not all smokers share this callous disregard for others, but these few are certainly not helping their PR.
I am a non-smoker who absolutely despises smoke. I hate having to walk anyway near it. Not only does it affect my health, but it's disgusting. That said, is it really realistic to institute a campus-wide ban? What about employees who have been smoking for decades? If your goal is to reduce second hand smoke: just create an area for smokers that is far away from everyone else where people can smoke. If your goal is to get people to quit smoking, then offering programs to help people quit (and publicizing them) will be a lot more effective then simply banning it.
<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]--><!--[if !mso]>
<! st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } --> <!--[endif]--><!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:AR-SA;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --><!--[if gte mso 10]> <! /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} --> <!--[endif]-->Anonymous 8:16pm
1. Thanks for your comments. You are right about the hospitals, but malls, airports, and other public spaces can enforce smoking bans. Although there are currently no federal regulations, local Codes of Ordinances and (in some cases) even State Ordinances allow for such bans to occur (Missouri state has no statewide ban). While I don’t know the current legal status of WashU, my point was that smoking bans in public areas is not a new or illegal/unconstitutional thing.
2. I thought my complain about walking near smokers was sort of self-explanatory, but I can provide a rationale. You have the right to smoke. And I have the right not to. But what happens when your right to smoke and do whatever you want to your lungs begins to inescapably affect my lungs (and my right not to smoke)? Furthermore, I don’t think it would be fair to replace “smokers” with “flatulent people” in my sentences because while flatulence can be disgusting/annoying/(or whatever adjective you want to put here), it does not inflict significant, detrimental effects to my health. I’m not arguing for comfort here, I’m trying to keep my body healthy.
It is worth to mention that yes, my major gripe is having to walk in clouds of smoke. I don’t know if you would agree with me on this, but I believe that designating secluded, well-ventilated smoking areas would make us both happier. Smokers would not need to go off-campus to smoke; non-smokers could walk on a smoke-free campus.
For those who complain about walking through "clouds of smoke": maybe it's just my community college background (nearly everone smokes, quite heavily, on community college campuses), but you are crazy if you think you've ever had to walk through a "cloud of smoke" on this campus. Hardly anyone does smoke, and I have never seen more than a handful congregate at any one time. Try walking through a couple dozen people in tight formation smoking Kools outside your library and then talk to me about "clouds of smoke."
The truly bizarre thing about Wash U's decision is that, while on all sides the university is retreating from assuming its traditional role of in loco parentis, on this one matter we're suddenly Baptists. Sexually transmitted diseases are a lot more significant of a health risk on campus than public smoking, and yet the idea that it is the university's duty to prevent froshies from playing the two-backed beast to their heart's content in their dorm rooms--on the contrary, if anyone suggested that it were not rather the duty of the university to facilitate it!--would have the student body up in arms. The same goes for drinking, of course.
Personally, I prefer my prigs purebred or not at all. Either ban drinking and dancing or well, or give us over to pagan license and let us choose what vices we will.
While we're at it, can we institute a campus-wide crack ban? I hate having to walk past that cloud of crack smoke outside the library and the Women's Building at 3 AM on Tuesday evenings... that is not an appropriate time to be smoking crack. It's really annoying for me to have to hold my breath for all of 1.5 seconds when walking through that cloud outside the library- I get winded easily and 2 seconds is about my limit. Sometimes when I'm really nervous I can't make it through, and end up inhaling some crack smoke, which is especially abnoxious when I'm leaving the library late because then I usually can't fall asleep for the next few hours, which is very detrimental to my academics on top of being a health concern. Should I propose this to the University?
Hey. I posted earlier and wanted to make a reply to some comments. Mr. Ian, I do not understand the point of your anecdote about the "clouds of smoke" in your community college campus. Does that mean that if the crime rate in New York City were greater than in St. Louis, our local authorities should stop trying to reduce crime? (Hypothetical example, of course).
I have to agree with you that WU has several weird policies, and I do believe that many of them need to change. It's not a matter of religious righteousness or whatever you want to call it, it is simply something that affects us all. STDs are probably rampant on campus, but people choose to engage in sexual activities prior to getting STDs. The case is not the same for second-hand smoke. Smokers and non-smokers are both subjected to second-hand smoke, whether they choose to smoke or not.
While the smoking policy is not the only one that needs to change on this campus, let it be the first of many steps.
Post new comment