Before the University continues the debate on the merits of a campus-wide smoking ban, an honest look ought to be given to the reasons and implications of such a ban.
With the exception of The BG News’ Staff Editorial, few questions have publicly been raised to combat the initiative.
Aside from a cigar every now and then, I don’t smoke and even then, it’s off campus. In theory, I suppose I have no reason to dissent on the matter, as it does not directly affect me one way or another.
In other words, a smoke-free campus would not force me to change my habits or lifestyle, so why oppose it?
I would venture to guess this way of thinking is felt by most other University students as well, which is awfully mistaken.
There are many reasons you shouldn’t smoke; no one is going to suggest that not allowing students to smoke is going to harm their health. What I would suggest instead is that the University place emphasis on the education pertaining to the health risks and not attempt to legislate “a healthy lifestyle” for its students and faculty.
And although a smoker’s health is imperative to this debate, it isn’t the manifest concern of proponents — secondhand smoke is always at the forefront when it comes to contemplating smoking bans.
Recent studies suggest that outdoor secondhand smoke is no less harmful than indoor and someone who is near a smoker outside is no less at risk than near a smoker inside.
What concerns me, however, is that the vast majority of these studies only concern groups of smokers who lurk outside of restaurants, bars and other buildings.
These studies also usually assume close proximity to the smoker and prolonged exposure, which may not be a realistic representation of the college setting. Secondhand smoke is certainly a health hazard, but is the realistic risk enough to impose such a drastic measure? Ohio law already prohibits smoking within 35 feet of a building.
At that range, the risk of smoking is virtually nonexistent.
In fact, a study conducted by Stanford University researchers suggests at even 6 feet distance from a smoker, the secondhand risk diminishes. If we were to abide by current Ohio law, the problem would be a non-issue.
“But how do we enforce the current Ohio law?” I’ve heard in response.
Well, how do we enforce the new initiative? In short, we don’t; it’s infeasible to have campus police enforce it and there seem to be few alternatives. Because of this, the proponents are relying on you, the student or faculty of the University, to impose their regulations for them. Can’t we do that without the need for formal regulation?
I understand that no smoker is walking around measuring 35 feet from any building before lighting up, but we can all tell that someone who props the doors of a residence hall to smoke on the steps or someone who sits outside the Union is blatantly not acting within current law.
If the University cannot enforce non-compliance as obvious as that, enforcement of an entire campus’ new regulation is certainly futile.
And what of the people who are habitual smokers or even addicts? It seems the proponents of the initiative would have us force them off of campus — even at night, when their safety could be threatened.
By no means am I condoning their habits, but it’s a real concern for many and I fear that their circumstances are not being fairly considered.
There are also alternative solutions that may serve the same purpose without the need for such an intense measure.
For example, the University of Toledo and Cedar Point have implemented smoking hubs to alleviate the litter and proximity problems. This would allow smokers a place to go without imposing a nuisance on other students, who can easily avoid them.
Even considering such a measure would prove to the students that the University is willing to compromise in order to best serve everyone’s interests. Unfortunately, it seems that isn’t the path being taken by ‘the powers that be’.
All things considered, a complete campus-wide smoking ban is a needlessly drastic step and one that seems like it is being made without much explicit deliberation and inclusive debate.
I sincerely hope that more discussion, more research and more transparency are sought before a final decision is made.
Respond to Chance at