You are viewing the archive of our old site. Click here to return to the new site. A Smoke-Free Campus - OpEd - The Current - Green River Community College
Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

A Smoke-Free Campus

Published: Friday, April 29, 2011

Updated: Wednesday, May 4, 2011 12:05

A poll held during the recent student government elections signaled the consideration of making the college's campus completely smoke-free. We support this initiative.

Countless studies have shown that smoke is damaging - in fact, "There is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke. Any exposure to tobacco smoke – even an occasional cigarette or exposure to secondhand smoke – is harmful," according to the U.S. Surgeon General.

The current rule - no smoking within 25 feet of building entrances - is aimed at keeping smoke away from the inside of buildings. But in practice, it is clearly unenforceable. Consequently, a lot of students, especially those with asthma, have to deal with smoke inside buildings as well. This needs to stop.

But the ban should be imposed in a way that as "smoker-friendly" as possible.

People often make the argument that smoking itself is damaging to those who do it, and that it should therefore be discouraged by colleges. But it is hypocritical to argue this and at the same time do nothing about the unhealthy food in the cafeteria - both cigarette and fat foods damage the health of the consumer. It is not the job of a college to regulate the private behavior of its students, no matter how harmful it is to them personally - not until it affects others without their consent.

Nor should we forbid smoking simply because it is considered a nuisance. Loud music is arguably just as irritating, yet there's not a reasonable person attempting to impose a campus-wide decibel limit, nor should there be; when we start banning things just because people – even if it is a majority – consider them annoying, we venture onto a slippery slope. Those who want smoking prohibited because it gets on their nerves are supporting the right cause for the wrong reasons.

The ban should therefore be designed in a way that improves the health of the public without putting smokers through unnecessary trouble, like making those who have classes in the SMT walk all the way to the other side of campus just to light up. This can be done by putting several covered "smoker spots" in low-traffic areas, such as the parking lots, around campus.

Due to the difficulty of enforcing the current rules and the health risks to those unwillingly inhaling second-hand smoke, we feel banning smoking from campus completely is the best practical method out there to further the well-being of the campus in general. But the ban must be designed in a way that doesn't needlessly stigmatize smokers.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

1 comments

Walter Lowe, English Division Faculty
Wed May 4 2011 13:38
The commentary on support for the smoking ban a makes sense in many ways. I find it ironic that the state is accepting settlement money from the tobacco companies because the insidious effects of tobacco were not publicized, yet at the same time state supported schools have very little support for those on campus who are regularly exposed to those same insidious effects. How soon before a former student with cancer sues the school, the state, and the system?

How many times have I walked on campus between classes with someone a few feet ahead of me walking with a lit cigarette, exposing me and everyone else around me to the harmful effects of first and second hand smoke? I find it not only physically irritating but also mentally rude.

What can we do to protect ourselves? Do we stop and wait a few minutes for the air to clear? In that time, a second and even third person may walk by with a lit cigarette. Shall we take a longer route, the path less travelled, to avoid the crowds and reduce the odds of tobacco exposure? Why should the nonsmokers be inconvenienced in such a way?

Of course, the worst is running the gauntlet of smokers between the library and the RLC building. Even if we don���t breathe, the smell lingers on our clothing to be inhaled later. I recall a few years ago when one of the librarians was adversely affected by the smoke during her pregnancy. Every time the doors opened, the smoke would get sucked into the library, affecting her physically. Between classes campus security stayed in that gauntlet area chasing people away from the doorways, with clear ���no smoking beyond this point��� signs on the ash receptacles. As soon as the security personnel left the area, the smokers whooshed back into the vacated spaces and security would return again and chase them back beyond the line again. This pattern of irritating behavior and rude attitudes continued for several weeks.

The analogy of junk food to cigarettes doesn���t seem to apply, however. If I am sitting near someone eating unhealthy food bought on campus, I���m not being adversely affected the way I would be if I���m studying on the steps in front of the PA Building and someone relaxing nearby pulls out a pack of Marlboros and lights up.

As a former smoker myself, I would say the concern shouldn���t be about how we might negatively stigmatize smokers. The reality is how the smokers end up stigmatizing themselves.







log out