Proposed smoking ban on campus: two views

The happy chatter of students, faculty, and staff fills the air. Students of different majors, career paths, and walks of life come here to relax, chat, and light up one more cigarette. The designated smoking zones, affectionately called "huts," "shacks," or even "mangers," foster some of the best social life on campus.

In our last issue, The Voice published an article regarding a proposed campus-wide ban on smoking. The ban is being considered by the Mercer administration due to concern over second-hand smoke, as well as cigarette litter on campus. "Health is our main concern," said Jose Fernandez, Executive Director for Compliance and Human Resources. "The intent has always been to protect the community."

The present day smoking zones were established in 2006 to protect the community from second-hand smoke while upholding the community's privilege to smoke on campus and the current policy is both fair and effective. It works to ensure that the only individuals who will be affected by second-hand smoke are those who choose to visit the smoking huts. Compliance has been increasing and the peak-hour crowds at the zones have become progressively larger since legislation of the new policy.

One faculty member, who asked to remain anonymous, said: "Whoever is assessing that the smoking huts are not successful is measuring success incorrectly. You cannot expect 100% compliance immediately." The same faculty member added "I think the way to measure success is in measuring how many more people are frequenting the hut."

A complete smoking ban on campus would be a disaster. Security personnel already have their hands full managing the 292 acre campus. "Given the budget issues, enforcement of a ban becomes unwieldy" says Fernandez. Even if the ban were enacted, could it be enforced? Can we really expect members of the community to make the long walk to the parking lot every time they want to smoke? If it takes 10 minutes to walk to or from the parking lot, and five minutes to smoke a cigarette, people will have to spend at least 25 minutes for every cigarette break they take. The busy students, faculty, and staff at MCCC simply don't have that kind of time to spare.

It's impractical to ticket everyone on campus that may have a lit cigarette in their hand or mouth. It would be just as impractical as enforcing all students, faculty, and staff to wear their college identification cards - a policy that is not enforced (or enforceable) on a wide scale.

The current policy designates areas for smoking and hence it quarantines both the offensive smoke and litter from cigarettes. What would happen if smoking was suddenly banned even in these huts? First, the thousands of dollars spent on the structures of the huts themselves would be wasted. Second, because the policy is neither enforceable nor widely favored by the smoking community, it is doubtful that community members would stop smoking on campus.

Because the designated areas would cease to exist, it's not hard to imagine smokers on campus simply lighting up wherever or whenever they choose. This would only increase the amount of second-hand smoke suffered by the rest of the community, and likely increase litter everywhere except at the smoking zones.

Faculty members interviewed (all of whom asked to remain anonymous) raised questions about the purpose of a possible ban. Because there has been no public outcry about the health or litter problems, one faculty member said "this leads me to suspect that the littering is really just a smoke screen for the fact that we've become a rabidly anti-smoking culture. It's gotten to the point that the mere thought of a smoker sets off outrage."

But are smokers just a tiny fraction of the population at Mercer? Roughly thirty full time faculty and staff members smoke, not including adjunct faculty members. A substantial amount of Mercer students smoke, but exact numbers cannot be verified. The issue may seem trivial to nonsmokers but it is one that affects everyone on campus.