The Beacon Editorial: University should reach out to students on smoking ban

With the smoking ban being given the final go-ahead by the University’s Board of Trustees, starting Jan. 1, 2011 students who choose to live in on-campus housing will be told to keep smoke-free or go for a walk.

During their full board meeting on Sept. 24, the BOT gave final approval to the smoking ban while at the same time presenting absolutely no plans on how it will be enforced, aside from “social enforcement” — which is almost assured to be deemed insufficient.

“This regulation is truly a reflection of a commitment to two of the things that the [University] president has presented: our commitment to environment and our commitment to health,” said Vice President of Student Affairs Rosa Jones during the Sept. 24 meeting.

While it truly does demonstrate the University’s commitment to health and the environment, it begs the question: what about the University’s commitment to its students?

On Sept. 29, the Student Government Association at Modesto Maidique Campus Housing Senators Carlos Rodriguez and Christina Marinos held a Housing and Residential Life town hall forum, where housing students could voice their concerns about the smoking ban, its implementation and the general lack of respect by the University toward the opinions of students in relation to the ban.

According to a study conducted by University in conjunction with the American College Health Association, 4.2 percent of 42,000  students on campus consider themselves smokers.

Apparently, the concerns of 1,764 students are just not loud enough for the University to hear.

With a smoking ban in effect, a housing student would be forced to leave their dorm and either walk or drive outside the campus in order to smoke. Not only is that a huge inconvenience for the student, but it also puts their safety at risk.

The University, being an open campus, already faces enough of a challenge with security. It doesn’t need to get worse by having housing students go off campus to smoke. It’s a risk the University can avoid and, frankly, an unnecessary headache for members of Public Safety.

And let’s not forget, those are just the students who care enough to actually leave their dorms in order to smoke.

As Rodriguez said during the forum, there will be plenty of smokers who opt to stay in and smoke in their room with a window open, which in turn will end up being a problem for the residential assistants to deal with.

This is ironic, seeing as this is exactly the opposite of what the smoking ban is intended to do: keep smoking away from non-smokers.

While the University stresses a positive reinforcement of the ban, offering services through University Health Services to help smokers quit, it needs to come to terms with the fact that they will not be able to force people to quit and that smokers will keep smoking regardless of a ban — especially one with such a loose implementation and no initial sanctions.

It’s unfortunate that the University does not even attempt to reach a middle ground with the students who would be affected by the ban. The idea of designated smoking areas has been mentioned before, only to be shot down due to the supposed $400,000 price tag, which seems rather odd.

The Beacon thinks the University should not steam roll through this under the guise that this policy will benefit all students and should consider hammering out a solution with students that smoke.