Campus Smoking Ban Fails Its Purpose

Originally published in the Valparaiso University student newspaper, The Torch, on April 16, 2010.

There is no penalty for smoking penalty cigarettes on campus. Though the university administration has “banned” tobacco from campus, the lack of enforcement has rendered the policy shallow and unflattering to the university’s integrity. The administration should repeal the smoking ban on campus and replace it with comprehensive addiction-fighting programs.

Imagine this scenario: An Ambassador in Admissions guides a tour around campus, showing prospective students and parents the university’s wonderful infrastructure. Walking through the Valparaiso University Center for the Arts, the guide strolls along the asphalt path backwards, talking at length about our academic accolades. Suddenly, dense cloud of burning cigarettes engulfs the tour group; two students stand smoking near the doorway. Mother coughs violently.

“I thought this was a tobacco-free campus,” she says, recovering from the smoke’s violent invasion into her lungs.

“It's supposed to be,” the AIA says.

The ban on smoking has failed its purpose; we have not achieved a smoke-free campus. Simply declaring cigarette smoking a prohibited activity is about as effective as telling an open wound to stop bleeding.

We need more.

Instead of a ban, the university should engage in more proactive measures to help students quit. The Health Center could sponsor students to group together and kick the habit together. The cafe could sell nicotine patches and other tools for combating the cigarette crave. If the university could foster an environment where students felt encouraged to quit smoking, a ban would be unnecessary.

Even Residence Life policies aren’t hospitable to students trying to quit. They’ve banned electronic cigarettes from the residence halls. These mechanisms satisfy the nicotine craving while only emitting water vapor. There is no smoke involved, and yet they’ve been barred. Instead of disallowing a harmless substitution for a cigarette, maybe Residence Life should do more to address the inherent issues facing students who smoke. Where are the support groups? Where are the information sessions? Where is anything other than an ineffective “no smoking” sign?

In the place of positive results, our current smoking policy has stigmatized smokers as a separate class of students. Ostracizing people for poor health habits achieves nothing. Have no doubt, vitriolic attitudes toward smokers not only exist, but have manifested in direct confrontations. Walking toward the entrance of Brandt Hall, I witnessed a student enduring harassment while standing outside near the benches. From one of the windows, someone felt it necessary to shout venomous expletives down at this student for smoking.

This is not the atmosphere the university wishes to cultivate.

Breaking addiction requires education, support and will power; two-thirds of this formula is currently missing on campus. Students who wish to quit smoking have the will power, now they need the university to fulfill its duty to educate and support its students – all students.

Currently, the ban is a hollow rule that yields no positive effects and numerous negative ones. It’s a lazy policy and students - both smokers and non-smokers - deserve more.