Implications of the campus-wide smoking ban
Toycen, Michael
Issue date: 9/25/09 Section: Opinions & Editorials
Under new rules at Lawrence, people are no longer allowed to smoke within the "academic necklace" of campus. Although it is completely acceptable to pass this rule -- Lawrence is private property -- there are some implications that need to be brought to attention.
First, the biggest problem with the ban is that short of someone vigilantly patrolling the affected areas and accosting individuals who break the rules, very little can be done in the way of enforcement.
People may follow the ban out of the good of their hearts, but if not, both parties will suffer. LU security will have its time wasted by shaking down kids over cigarettes, and smokers, hassled, will quickly lose any respect they once had for security. Further, people being able to repeatedly break a rule makes a mockery of the law.
Then there is pollution. To encourage people to cease smoking in the academic necklace, ashtrays will be moved to areas outside the ban. Though this may cut down on smoking, it will only create more litter. Smokers are generally able to disregard the rule with little consequence, and will have no place to dispose their cigarette butts. This will dirty Lawrence's campus.
Though I applaud the cabinet and the faculty committee on university governance for trying to make Lawrence healthier, this smoking ban is filled with implications not properly thought out. People at Lawrence University --students, faculty or staff -- should make rules in accordance with reality, not lofty ideals.
Most troubling about this is how indifferent many people on campus have been to the smoking ban -- especially drinkers. When one compares the damage that smoking and alcohol consumption do to this campus, alcohol is far worse than smoking.
Hangovers cause students to miss class, drinking too much impairs academics, and people go to the hospital almost every term for binge drinking. Also, there is a remarkable amount of vandalism because of alcohol. Clearly the administration should be fighting alcohol consumption as aggressively as they are fighting smoking.
First, the biggest problem with the ban is that short of someone vigilantly patrolling the affected areas and accosting individuals who break the rules, very little can be done in the way of enforcement.
People may follow the ban out of the good of their hearts, but if not, both parties will suffer. LU security will have its time wasted by shaking down kids over cigarettes, and smokers, hassled, will quickly lose any respect they once had for security. Further, people being able to repeatedly break a rule makes a mockery of the law.
Then there is pollution. To encourage people to cease smoking in the academic necklace, ashtrays will be moved to areas outside the ban. Though this may cut down on smoking, it will only create more litter. Smokers are generally able to disregard the rule with little consequence, and will have no place to dispose their cigarette butts. This will dirty Lawrence's campus.
Though I applaud the cabinet and the faculty committee on university governance for trying to make Lawrence healthier, this smoking ban is filled with implications not properly thought out. People at Lawrence University --students, faculty or staff -- should make rules in accordance with reality, not lofty ideals.
Most troubling about this is how indifferent many people on campus have been to the smoking ban -- especially drinkers. When one compares the damage that smoking and alcohol consumption do to this campus, alcohol is far worse than smoking.
Hangovers cause students to miss class, drinking too much impairs academics, and people go to the hospital almost every term for binge drinking. Also, there is a remarkable amount of vandalism because of alcohol. Clearly the administration should be fighting alcohol consumption as aggressively as they are fighting smoking.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
harleyrider1978
posted 9/26/09 @ 5:18 AM CST
Second hand smoke is a joke.Its 98% water vapor/steam. Are you afraid of water then you will be afraid of second hand smoke.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke "health hazard" claims are greatly exaggerated
The BMJ published report can be found here:
http://www. (Continued…)
Daniel O. Lynch, Ph.D., UWO Prof Emeritus
posted 9/27/09 @ 10:56 AM CST
harleyrider1978 seems not to know the British Medical Journal article he was citing was an example of corruption of science by a person paid by a tobacco company. (Continued…)
VANESSA
posted 10/26/09 @ 10:53 AM CST
SMOKING IS DISCUSTING AND IT STINKS. PEOPLE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SMOKE IN THERE CARS ONLY!!!
Post a Comment