Beacon Editorial: Smoking ban slithers ahead with inept implementation

University smokers are being incrementally marginalized by the University’s administration in the name of an improved public image.

Controversial laws and rules are rarely proposed and passed in one fell swoop. It’s much easier to pass something without support if you do it step by step.

Just one year ago, people were permitted to smoke on campus as long as they were 20 feet away from any building.

At the end of the 2009, the University’s Operations and Executive committees, with the approval of University President Mark Rosenberg, approved a University-wide ban on smoking that was to be enforced socially.

At the time, The Beacon took a stand against this ban as being purely symbolic and unnecessary in the Nov. 2009 editorial. Given that the previous law had been largely disregarded, simply enforcing it would have accomplished the goals of the ban.

During the Sept. 7 Board of Trustees meeting, a regulation was approved that says little more than the previous ban; simply allowing for exceptions to the ban in designated areas as part of a University research or education program.

The resolution passed with all but Student Government at Modesto Maidique Campus President Helena Ramirez voting in favor of it. While emphasizing that everything is in the planning stages, the possibility for fines and penalties seems realistic should the social enforcement policy fail. For The Beacon, it is not a matter of if, but when the social enforcement policy will fail.

Any rule without some sort of penalty to act as a deterrent relies on an altruistic view that people will do what is right because it is what is right. The dozens of cars parked illegally around the edges of the Graham Center parking lot are proof enough that even with penalties, students will break rules at their convenience.

To expect them to follow a rule that has no penalty is unrealistic and idealistic. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that there will be real penalties for smokers on campus.

Beyond the dubious way in which this rule is being implemented, The Beacon has to once again question the wisdom of this ban at its core and the data that is being used to back it up.

In the BOT meeting, Vice President of Student Affairs Dr. Rosa Jones, who initiated the resolution, cited a study of 179 University students’ health and characteristics. In this survey, the American College Health Association found that 4.2% of all students characterize themselves as “everyday smokers.”

An argument was made that the ban is justifiable because it only affects a small portion of the University while benefiting the entire student body’s health and well-being.

Beyond the obvious issues with justifying the restriction of a group’s rights because they are a minority, we question the accuracy of a survey of 179 students being used to represent a student body of over 40,000. The University’s student body, faculty and staff is routinely celebrated for its diversity.

This survey and the usage of the survey to justify this ban ignores this diversity in order to fulfill a longtime goal of a small group.

At the BOT meeting, Ramirez asked for details on how the University plans on implementing the smoking ban but only received the same vague phase descriptons and no specifics. It was finally revealed that no such details actually exist, as Smoke and Tobacco-Free Steering Committee decided to wait until after the BOT decided to approve the smoking ban to figure out these details.

The Beacon, ultimately, questions the capability and plans of those responsible in crafting this phased solution. The process in which this policy has been passed sets an ugly precedent for student’s rights in future policy decisions.