Ban and advocates need something stronger for support
>>Print ViewPublication Date: 11/04/2009
sponsored by
The question on many minds these days is, what’s up with Purdue’s proposed campus-wide smoking ban? To me, it’s just showing a dog (Purdue and secondhand-smoke opponents) that’s all bark and no bite.
First, let’s consider how Purdue is dealing with the proposed ban.
The furry magenta elephant in the room with both the current and the proposed policies for campus smoking is that they are not and cannot be enforced. I know why, though; soon, you will, too.
You see, in the current, 30-feet-away-from-buildings policy, it is the duty of all deans, directors, chairs and department heads to enforce the rules. Basically, it is the administration’s responsibility to enforce the policy which it has enacted. It will be the same for the proposed campus-wide smoking ban.
Yet, according to executive associate Dean of Students Steve Akers, there has not been one case of a smoking-policy violation referred to the dean’s office. Ever. There are a few possibilities of why there have been no cases reported: smokers are sticking to the rules, smokers are getting only verbal warnings, or “enforcers” of the policy are not doing their job. I’d wager the last one is the most true of all, as “enforcers” are typically up in offices taking care of what they’re paid to take care of: education.
By putting a campus-wide ban into place, the University would be displaying further impotence with this specific rule’s enforcement. No one is going to abide by the ban: they know they won’t get in trouble – especially since there have been no penalty cases previously. Akers said the possible punishments for any conduct violation (such as smoking on campus in a ban) include “warnings, disciplinary probation, suspension or expulsion.” It seems by threatening violators with Purdue’s whole spectrum of punishment possibilities, the University thinks it has covered its hindparts.
Oh, quite the contrary, Purdue. Most likely the worst that could happen in a campus-smoking situation under the proposed ban is an “enforcer” or assertive peer (student, faculty member, etc.) would ask the smoker to put out the cigarette. The smoker would say, “Sure, just let me finish it up really quick,” and only after would extinguish it. Is that “enforcer” really going to take the time to report the smoker to the Dean’s Office? Probably not.
To make a long story short (too late, right?), with the proposed plan Purdue will be putting on a show instead of delivering results. So what’s the point of having the rule in the first place? I don’t see one.
Now, I want to counter those on campus who support the ban, whether or not the new policy can be enforced properly.
If you’re supporting the ban because “cigarettes kill,” then I’ve got a solution for you: don’t smoke cigarettes and leave those alone who choose to indulge in this simple, everyday pleasure – a pleasure which is a right which every U.S. citizen may utilize, because, well, smoking’s legal here. To advocate a ban on a legal action you don’t like is not “healthy living.” It’s fascism.
Most of those who advocate the adoption of the campus-wide ban, however, use the dangers of secondhand smoke as a reason for enacting the policy.
Now, I’ll make this clear: I live in the 21st century, hence I am fully aware secondhand smoke can cause (in non-smokers) cancer, heart disease, breathing problems, asthma attacks and ear infections for children. Also, pregnant women exposed to secondhand smoke have an increased risk of having low birth-weight babies. None of that sounds good.
The problem with this campus is the “I have the right to breathe clean air” people are too literally interpreting the definition of secondhand smoke. Problems such as the ones I just highlighted almost always occur with people who regularly breathe in the smoke (I repeat, smoke) emitted from tobacco being burned, and the smoke exhaled from a smoker.
So, say you’re a kid with a smoker for a parent who lights up in their closed house every morning over the breakfast table. That child is definitely at risk for the problems associated with secondhand smoke, and I can fully agree that, in this case, secondhand smoke is quite dangerous.
Let’s be honest, though: how many of you secondhand-smoke-on-campus complainers actually inhale smoke and not just the scent left behind from a cigarette? Don’t know the difference? Well, smoke is defined as a visually present cloud of gas particles produced from burning something; scent is the residual smell the dissipated smoke leaves behind.
Do you know how fast smoke dissipates in the open, outside air? No, it doesn’t hang around for minutes at a time so passersby have to choke on it. Within seconds of exhalation, secondhand smoke outside is gone, leaving only the scent of burned tobacco in its place, which, albeit, is undesirable to some. The American Cancer Society’s research shows these particles left in the air, or “thirdhand smoke,” would likely have very small cancer-causing effects compared with direct exposure to the smoke.
Maybe secondhand smoke opponents on Purdue’s campus need to re-evaluate whether they are truly and consistently inhaling secondhand smoke, or whether they just think the leftover scent is too stinky for their sensitive little noses.
The long and short of it is the University can’t back up the proposed (or current) policy with enforcement, and policy advocates can’t legitimately back up their secondhand smoke claims. Both entities should stop blowing smoke instead of trying to demonize actual smoke-blowing.
Lydia Williams is a senior in the College of Liberal Arts and may be reached at opinions@purdueexponent.org.