Orientation Leaders: The Orientation Executive Board and Washington University Student Associates work around the year to ensure a smooth transition for incoming freshmen and transfer students.
Apr
19
2009
All material is copyright © 2009 Washington University in St. Louis unless otherwise noted. For additional information or to provide feedback, contact the webmaster.
Comments
i hope that SU is not only concerned because they were not consulted....
and if the University has already made its decision, what will us complaining do? they have spoken. we just have to deal with it.
One thing that people overlook is that this is a tobacco ban, not just a smoking ban. This means that dipping and chewing tobacco are also banned. While I think that dipping is disgusting, I don't understand why the university feels the need to ban this, when it can't possibly affect the health of bystanders. It will probably be almost unenforceable, but the just the idea of it is going too far.
do people here use tobacco other than cigarettes? i can't say in my several years here i've ever seen anyone use dip/snuff/etc.
People definitely use dip, although I don't think anyone will protest the ban because of it.
I think that the smoking ban is a great idea. I should have the right to breathe healthy air while I walk around campus. I am highly allergic to cigeratte smoke and find that I have to go out of my way to avoid smoker spots. This move will also eliminate quite a bit of litter- all of those cigeratte butts outside the library are disgusting. Thank you Wash U.
Great job, this is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed.
I was floored to see the university came to this conclusion. Thoughts:
1. Jeff Nelson is right that this decision feels handed over to the student body as a fait accompli. Does the University really think that they have the right to tell 11% of the student body to change their lifestyle without even asking? Unless there’s something about the decision process that I haven’t heard, this was an egregious violation of our right to participate in the decisions that directly affect us.
2. What is the university going to say if some Nobel Prize winner visits campus and wants to smoke? Is the university going to make exceptions for important people who aren’t students? I suspect they will.
3. The students and faculty who smoke are not breaking the law, so all the university’s justifications must rely on health effects. But how can the university justify banning smoking and not fatty foods by this logic?
4. I’m skeptical of the idea that outdoor secondhand smoke is a serious health hazard. Conditions where secondhand smoke is a real concern typically come up in restaurants or bars where waiters can expect to be exposed to second-hand smoke night after night for hours. The occasional three-second walk-by just means holding your breath for a while.
5. Couldn’t there just be designated smoking areas on campus? Maybe an “only smoke on the grass” rule.
6. What’s going to happen to Chancellor Wrighton’s cigar habit?
I am a non-smoker and I find the smoking ban offensive and over-the-top. It is clear that the university is trying to force people to give up a vice, but that is not their job. We will lose plenty of staff, faculty and prospective students because of this. A rule requiring all smokers to be at least 10 feet away would solve the problem of non-smokers being inconvenienced. This ban is overstepping the school's boundaries. What's next, a junk food ban? (Probably)
They have also done a great job of getting students motivated and interested in University decisions. Bravo.
Montana is freakin' awesome. I have never seen SU so active as in the last few weeks. Plus the president is very articulate!
Post new comment