Smoking debate smolders as students choose to butt out

Staff Editorial

Published: Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Updated: Thursday, March 11, 2010

The fiery debate of smoking on the University of Cincinnati’s campus has been stoked by a recent poll on the UC Blackboard Web site. The poll was sponsored by Student Government in conjunction with the student group Colleges Against Cancer.

The results were overwhelming, indicating 64.34 percent of the 6,102 students responding favor a non-smoking UC campus.

While the thought of a smoke-free UC campus is appealing, a tremendous amount of work needs to be done by the student body before attempting to institute a no-smoking policy, including enforcing the current rules UC has in place.

The current university regulations concerning smoking, according to UC spokesperson Greg Hand, were instituted in December 2005. The policy was voted on and approved by many UC groups, as well as the entire student body.

The policy forbids smoking in parking garages, enclosed buildings, athletic facilities and UC vehicles. It also prohibits smoking within 25 feet of windows, buildings and entrances.

Students who commit an infraction are subject to repercussions outlined in the university code of conduct. Employees and faculty are subject to disciplinary action from their supervisor.

Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, has a no-smoking policy for all of its campuses. The policy has been somewhat successful, according to Claire Wagner, director of news and public information at Miami.

The Miami community at large enforces the policy and Wagner has seen individuals disciplined for smoking on campus. Despite this, students, faculty and employees still smoke on campus, she said.

Look around. UC students, employees and faculty can be seen violating UC smoking policies daily. Very little is done to correct this behavior.

The UC smoking policy states, “It shall be the responsibility of all members of the University of Cincinnati community to observe this rule and to direct those who are smoking to designated smoking areas.”

Has the UC community truly done that, or have we become oblivious to it?

If we have become apathetic toward smoking 25 feet away from a building, how will we enforce no smoking at all?

Laziness on the part of the UC community to stand by its current policy is not a reason to create a new one. If the policy is truly put in action and is still found to be troublesome, then discussions concerning a new policy can begin.

There is an old saying: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Unfortunately, the current UC policy hasn’t been used enough to even be broken, let alone fixed.

Student Government should poll students again, asking students in favor of a non-smoking policy if they have actually addressed violators of the current UC rules.

It is easy to answer a poll feigning indignity at smoking on campus and demand a new policy. It’s a lot harder to stand up and support what you already have, which is what the UC student body should do before calling for a new policy.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

Facebook Comments
Site Comments

Tru Dat

Tue Mar 16 2010 11:25

Okay, so the purpose of this editorial is what? To get the Blackboard to run a new poll? To "rally" the UC Community into anti-smoking fascism?

Outdoor smoking bans are an outrage. For the most part, indoor smoking bans are wastes of policy. 26 feet from a door keeps all "safe" from the big, bad ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke), while 24 feet puts one in danger??? Nothing arbitrary about that...

What surprises me is that 35.66% of respondents to the mentioned poll do NOT favor a non-smoking campus. That number itself serves as the most insightful. Over one-third oppose the ban. Of the nearly two-thirds who favor one, you have to consider how many actually WANT one. And why. For example, how many just cringe at or are tired of seeing cigarette litter? There's a fix for that short of a ban. How many just find it unappealing or repulsive when smokers congregate for a "group smoke"? Well, this is what forcing them outdoors in limited space results in. This can also be fixed without a ban by providing "butt-huts" or sheltered and/or walled areas for smokers, which would have the added benefit of reducing rampant cigarette litter. Lastly, how many of that two-thirds really don't care whether or not there is a non-smoking campus, but not being smokers themselves - or having any empathy for smokers - feel a ban will not affect them in any negative way so they are "for it" because they have nothing to gain by continuing to allow on-campus smoking? And, after all, smoking is a bad "habit" - smoking is bad - so non-smoking MUST be "good".

To hell with protecting the rights of the minority population. I'm sure if the Blackboard ran a poll on whether or not to make UC a "gay-free" campus, the majority would oppose it. Even though there is plenty of documented evidence of the health-risks of homosexual sexual activity, it is widely acknowledged that gay people should not or cannot be discriminated against due to their orientation. The "rights" pendulem has swung - in just my lifetime - from the rights (or at least permissibility) of people who smoke, to the other extreme of people who believe smoking to be a near-felony, and there really needs to be a return to balance so that the smokers are no longer ostracised, marginalized, and treated as second-class citizens.

Please, WAKE UP PEOPLE! We've already gone overboard with these ridiculous restrictions. Smokers are people too - your parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings, spouses and children (your adult children, of course). Most are addicted to the nicotine and - while you WISH they would quit - cannot just cease smoking for several hours (because they're told they have to) without any negative consequences. Students in particular will not be able to focus and concentrate, will become agitated and irritable, and will have an overall feeling of uneasiness while suffering from the need for nicotine. Why would you want to inflict that kind of pain and suffering on someone who simply made a poor choice to let themselves become addicted? It is a cold, unfeeling person who disregards the needs of another.

bearcat money

Thu Mar 11 2010 07:52

There's a student group called "colleges FOR cancer?" I sure hope the group "colleges against cancer" doesn't hear about that.....

You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now