Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
ENLARGE
Jean Melo
I’ve never smoked. It’s definitely not a habit health professionals recommend, and it turns your teeth an ugly color. I sneeze and wheeze when I’m in a closed room where people are smoking, and I don’t like the way my clothes smell afterwards either. I know that smoking is not a good idea.
Still, I have concerns when I see the posters on the bulletin boards at Umpqua Community College announcing that in September, UCC will officially become a “tobacco-free” campus.
What’s not to like about this new rule? After all, in Oregon a law was recently passed prohibiting outside smoking “within 10 feet of all entrances, exits, and windows,” in a workplace, so why not take another leap and exclude smoking from the campus altogether? Wouldn’t it be great to proclaim “UCC is a smoke-free campus!”?
The “Tobacco Task Force” appointed by the UCC Board thought so, and recommended a campus-wide tobacco prohibition, which the Board approved.
Well, one thing not to like is the cost to build “smoking kiosks” on the periphery of campus. With an already tight budget, and tuition just raised, should the UCC board have approved building kiosks for smokers?
According to the November 2008 minutes of the UCC board, available online, pre-constructed smoking kiosks would cost $5,000. Although the campus maintenance crew may be able to build them for less, there will still be a considerable expense in time and materials that is just not necessary.
There are already designated outside smoking areas on campus, several located at the ends of buildings, far from doors and windows that open, therefore legal smoking areas under Oregon law.
The smokers have benches and cigarette disposal containers where they can responsibly dispose of their cigarette butts. It’s true that a few designated smoking areas do become heavy with cigarette smoke near high-traffic areas, and they could be eliminated — but why banish smokers to expensive, far-off kiosks when isolated smoking areas already exist on campus? What harm are smokers doing to others when smoking outside in isolated areas?
Then, there is the matter of student tardiness. Having taught at UCC, I am aware that the 10-minute break between classes is often barely enough time for students to walk from one end of campus to the other. Under the new policy, smokers who crave that nicotine fix will need to head for one of the peripheral kiosks, practically guaranteeing that smokers will be tardy for classes, disrupting the learning environment for all students.
A third concern: enforcement. No doubt some hapless smokers will be caught in the act by campus police and, according to the poster, fined $25. Will antismoking zealots report their fellow students to security guards if they see a transgressor? Is intimidation of this sort the atmosphere we want on our campus?
An even more profound and fundamental reason for protesting this blanket nonsmoking policy is the American concept of freedom of choice. Today in the U.S., many citizens seem determined to take away the rights of those with whom they disagree.
This is not only sad but alarming. Our forefathers knew that tyranny can result when the majority usurps minority rights and so insisted that the Bill of Rights be added to the proposed Constitution. Having studied history, they were aware that citizens who perceived themselves to be in the right would always be most eager to trample upon others’ freedoms to believe or behave in a manner they, the majority, find distasteful. In America, individuals are supposed to have the right to engage in activities that don’t harm others.
Ah ... but what about nonsmoking students’ health, and their right to breathe fresh air? Isn’t a nonsmoker’s health more important than smoker’s freedom? What if a passer-by inhales wisps of smoke?
Well, a 2007 Outdoor Smoking Study by Stanford University Environmental Engineers found that if you are 6 or more feet away from someone smoking outdoors, it becomes a non-issue.
Other scientific studies verify that in an outdoor setting, where the smoke is free to dissipate, the health of people passing by is not endangered.
Surely walking down a city street could be more detrimental to one’s health due to inhaling exhaust from hundreds of cars and buses. If we ban smoking at UCC, perhaps we should ban cars and trucks on campus. How many exhaling smokers would it take to equal the amount of pollution from just one vehicle driving across the UCC parking lot?
Finally, I would ask: Why forbid smoking on campus? What is the purpose? Could it be political correctness, and if so, is that a valid reason to deprive others of their rights when smokers aren’t harming anyone but themselves? Everyone knows smoking isn’t a good idea. But neither is UCC’s plan to forbid tobacco on campus. It is neither justified nor necessary, and should be thoughtfully reconsidered by students, faculty, staff, and the UCC Board.
Jean Melo of Roseburg is a retired elementary school teacher. She teaches Italian for the Umpqua Community College Community Education program and previously taught in the music and educational skills departments at UCC. She can be reached at jeanmelo99@yahoo.com.
Still, I have concerns when I see the posters on the bulletin boards at Umpqua Community College announcing that in September, UCC will officially become a “tobacco-free” campus.
What’s not to like about this new rule? After all, in Oregon a law was recently passed prohibiting outside smoking “within 10 feet of all entrances, exits, and windows,” in a workplace, so why not take another leap and exclude smoking from the campus altogether? Wouldn’t it be great to proclaim “UCC is a smoke-free campus!”?
The “Tobacco Task Force” appointed by the UCC Board thought so, and recommended a campus-wide tobacco prohibition, which the Board approved.
Well, one thing not to like is the cost to build “smoking kiosks” on the periphery of campus. With an already tight budget, and tuition just raised, should the UCC board have approved building kiosks for smokers?
According to the November 2008 minutes of the UCC board, available online, pre-constructed smoking kiosks would cost $5,000. Although the campus maintenance crew may be able to build them for less, there will still be a considerable expense in time and materials that is just not necessary.
There are already designated outside smoking areas on campus, several located at the ends of buildings, far from doors and windows that open, therefore legal smoking areas under Oregon law.
The smokers have benches and cigarette disposal containers where they can responsibly dispose of their cigarette butts. It’s true that a few designated smoking areas do become heavy with cigarette smoke near high-traffic areas, and they could be eliminated — but why banish smokers to expensive, far-off kiosks when isolated smoking areas already exist on campus? What harm are smokers doing to others when smoking outside in isolated areas?
Then, there is the matter of student tardiness. Having taught at UCC, I am aware that the 10-minute break between classes is often barely enough time for students to walk from one end of campus to the other. Under the new policy, smokers who crave that nicotine fix will need to head for one of the peripheral kiosks, practically guaranteeing that smokers will be tardy for classes, disrupting the learning environment for all students.
A third concern: enforcement. No doubt some hapless smokers will be caught in the act by campus police and, according to the poster, fined $25. Will antismoking zealots report their fellow students to security guards if they see a transgressor? Is intimidation of this sort the atmosphere we want on our campus?
An even more profound and fundamental reason for protesting this blanket nonsmoking policy is the American concept of freedom of choice. Today in the U.S., many citizens seem determined to take away the rights of those with whom they disagree.
This is not only sad but alarming. Our forefathers knew that tyranny can result when the majority usurps minority rights and so insisted that the Bill of Rights be added to the proposed Constitution. Having studied history, they were aware that citizens who perceived themselves to be in the right would always be most eager to trample upon others’ freedoms to believe or behave in a manner they, the majority, find distasteful. In America, individuals are supposed to have the right to engage in activities that don’t harm others.
Ah ... but what about nonsmoking students’ health, and their right to breathe fresh air? Isn’t a nonsmoker’s health more important than smoker’s freedom? What if a passer-by inhales wisps of smoke?
Well, a 2007 Outdoor Smoking Study by Stanford University Environmental Engineers found that if you are 6 or more feet away from someone smoking outdoors, it becomes a non-issue.
Other scientific studies verify that in an outdoor setting, where the smoke is free to dissipate, the health of people passing by is not endangered.
Surely walking down a city street could be more detrimental to one’s health due to inhaling exhaust from hundreds of cars and buses. If we ban smoking at UCC, perhaps we should ban cars and trucks on campus. How many exhaling smokers would it take to equal the amount of pollution from just one vehicle driving across the UCC parking lot?
Finally, I would ask: Why forbid smoking on campus? What is the purpose? Could it be political correctness, and if so, is that a valid reason to deprive others of their rights when smokers aren’t harming anyone but themselves? Everyone knows smoking isn’t a good idea. But neither is UCC’s plan to forbid tobacco on campus. It is neither justified nor necessary, and should be thoughtfully reconsidered by students, faculty, staff, and the UCC Board.
Jean Melo of Roseburg is a retired elementary school teacher. She teaches Italian for the Umpqua Community College Community Education program and previously taught in the music and educational skills departments at UCC. She can be reached at jeanmelo99@yahoo.com.
