Smoking ban wrong choice for UA

By Austin Gaddis

@austingaddis

After reading Wednesday’s doomsday letter to the editor about a campus-wide smoking ban, I almost wrote this column to say my final goodbyes.

In the letter, the author argued that the very life of every student was at risk if we allow individuals to use tobacco while on our campus.

Over the past week, several articles and columns have been published regarding a campus-wide smoking ban for the Capstone.

The advocates for the smoking ban complain of the adverse effects of secondhand smoke and the inconvenience of having to be around individuals smoking cigarettes while on campus.

While I can identify with their concerns, I would never advocate for a smoking ban when I can simply avoid the problem by walking around the smoker.

The author’s notion that equated smoking a cigarette in a public area to spraying a toxic poison is as utterly ridiculous as her claim that inhaling secondhand smoke is a violation of individual rights.

By that same logic, the thousands of air pollutants that we inhale everyday from industry in and around campus should be eliminated as well. In an open-air environment like the Quad, secondhand smoke inhalation is not a legitimate concern.

I can concede that the University’s current policy of limiting smoking to 30 feet from a campus building is not being enforced and should be. No one wants to walk through a cloud of smoke every morning as they try to walk into the door of their dorm or academic buildings, but I see no problem if the rules were enforced.

Theoretically, enacting a campus-wide smoking ban would force a student, who pays thousands of dollars to live in a dorm, to completely relocate from campus to partake in an activity that is otherwise perfectly legal.

The question then turns to control and oversight. Would UAPD be asked to take time away from ensuring campus safety to patrol campus for cigarette smokers? Would they be asked to walk around campus during the day to look for violators? The inability to effectively implement and maintain this kind of policy makes it highly unenforceable and unnecessary.

Instead of attempting to ban smoking all together, we should begin to explore simple ways to allow students their legal right to use tobacco products, while also providing other students the ability to not be around the smoke.

In the past several months, I’ve been in conversations with student leaders and top administrators from universities across our state – some who have recently passed or enacted smoking bans. When asked about the smoking bans, they said overwhelmingly that the ban was completed in small phases and in close collaboration with their student body.

As I’ve said many times in recent weeks to leaders on this campus, the next step in our campus smoking policy should be left up to the student body as a whole. This sort of policy is bigger than a committee or a commission; this should be a referendum left to the students.

Before we get ahead of ourselves calling for more regulations and policies, it is crucial to analyze the potential effectiveness and feasibility of our ideas. It would be near impossible to completely eliminate tobacco use on campus.

However, by strengthening and enforcing existing smoking rules, we could significantly reduce unwanted exposure to cigarette smoke.

A full tobacco ban would infringe on the student’s right to partake in a legally allowed activity. In the spirit of understanding and cooperation, we should explore other opportunities to satisfy both parties.

The CW’s poll this week asks if you support a smoking ban. Answer it. Let your voice be heard.

Austin Gaddis is a junior majoring in communication studies and public relations. His column runs on Thursdays.