2008 Woodie Awards
Campus-wide smoking ban infringes on rights
Issue date: 8/31/07 Section: Editorials
The Aug. 27 decision announced by Miami University President David Hodge to implement a policy making Miami a smoke-free campus represents sweeping change and a unique situation in Ohio-with two other universities in Ohio supporting such a policy. While the idea of a smoke-free campus is commendable and will likely generate a positive image for Miami, the policy infringes too far upon individual rights and currently lacks an imperative enforcement mechanism.
This editorial board realizes there is a clear link between smoking and lung cancer, and believes this fact is almost common knowledge among the general public. In addition, secondhand smoke has proven to hold some of the same adverse medical affects. With this basic reasoning, a smoke-free campus makes perfect sense. Yet Miami faculty, staff and students are legal adults. Fundamentally, legal adults are given the freedom to choose whether or not they want to smoke-stripping this right opens the floodgates of good health regulations to fatty foods, exercise, or any activity that negatively affects health. A "Mother Miami" shouldn't be
necessary for anyone on the university's grounds.
Because secondhand smoke impacts more than just those who are smoking, Miami's former policy of smoking 25 feet away from a building greatly reduces, if not eliminates, the amount of smoke floating into buildings and residence halls. In addition, establishments uptown-where many spend hours crowded into small spaces-are all ready smoke free.
While still in the very early stages of brainstorming disciplinary actions, it appears that students caught smoking would face the same disciplinary process as, for example, those found consuming alcohol underage. It will be nearly impossible to prevent students or even faculty from smoking on their way to class, unless Miami institutes staff members who patrol the campus, the same way parking and transportation services looks for parking violators. Would a student or staff member need to be "caught in the act" in order to be disciplined and who would be licensed to discipline students and staff?
Miami students living on campus would be disproportionately affected by this policy compared to their off-campus peers. Residence halls are equal to a student's home-at least for an academic year-and his or her right to smoke in at least designated areas away from the hall should continue. In addition, this sacrifice could potentially have an adverse impact on admission, with smokers being discouraged from attending Miami because of this policy. Miami states that it will increase its antismoking support for staff members, however it is questionable why these services were not as strong prior to the ban.
And while Miami may tout the fact that this policy will encourage employees and students to quit smoking, that is precisely the problem. Miami is inserting itself into the individual lives of its community members.
This editorial board realizes there is a clear link between smoking and lung cancer, and believes this fact is almost common knowledge among the general public. In addition, secondhand smoke has proven to hold some of the same adverse medical affects. With this basic reasoning, a smoke-free campus makes perfect sense. Yet Miami faculty, staff and students are legal adults. Fundamentally, legal adults are given the freedom to choose whether or not they want to smoke-stripping this right opens the floodgates of good health regulations to fatty foods, exercise, or any activity that negatively affects health. A "Mother Miami" shouldn't be
necessary for anyone on the university's grounds.
Because secondhand smoke impacts more than just those who are smoking, Miami's former policy of smoking 25 feet away from a building greatly reduces, if not eliminates, the amount of smoke floating into buildings and residence halls. In addition, establishments uptown-where many spend hours crowded into small spaces-are all ready smoke free.
While still in the very early stages of brainstorming disciplinary actions, it appears that students caught smoking would face the same disciplinary process as, for example, those found consuming alcohol underage. It will be nearly impossible to prevent students or even faculty from smoking on their way to class, unless Miami institutes staff members who patrol the campus, the same way parking and transportation services looks for parking violators. Would a student or staff member need to be "caught in the act" in order to be disciplined and who would be licensed to discipline students and staff?
Miami students living on campus would be disproportionately affected by this policy compared to their off-campus peers. Residence halls are equal to a student's home-at least for an academic year-and his or her right to smoke in at least designated areas away from the hall should continue. In addition, this sacrifice could potentially have an adverse impact on admission, with smokers being discouraged from attending Miami because of this policy. Miami states that it will increase its antismoking support for staff members, however it is questionable why these services were not as strong prior to the ban.
And while Miami may tout the fact that this policy will encourage employees and students to quit smoking, that is precisely the problem. Miami is inserting itself into the individual lives of its community members.
Be the first to comment on this story