If Campus Council has its way, smoking on campus will become a little bit more difficult.
In a close 9-8 vote last week, CC passed a resolution recommending that RLHS institute a smoking ban near residential areas of campus.
This resolution specifically would restrict smoking in the residential areas of East and West Campuses to designated areas, such as fire lanes and parking lots. If this policy is not implemented by RLHS, Campus Council voted as an alternate plan to prohibit smoking within 25 feet of any living space and on parallel walkways at least 50 feet from these buildings.
Campus Council’s plan to designate specific smoking areas goes too far, but its alternate plan to implement a non-smoking buffer zone around residential areas is more reasonable.
Smoking can be an invasive act when smoke travels into individuals’ rooms or surrounds the entrances to dorms. For this reason, regulating smoking around residential areas makes sense.
But the proposal currently on the table addresses this concern with a hatchet when only a scalpel is needed. and it too closely resembles the draconian smoking ban implemented at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill two years ago that prevents smoking within a 100-foot radius of any campus building.
From a practical perspective, most smoking near residential areas occurs on benches outside of each dorm or near the door. To curb this, a 25-foot no-smoking buffer would suffice.
Moreover, sweeping restrictions on smoking—like designated smoking areas—fail to adequately balance the rights of students living on campus with the rights of smokers. Although their habit has negative consequences for public health in general, smokers still should be able to light up without being confined to a specific area.
A looser restriction would better uphold the rights of both smokers and non-smokers by instituting narrow measures that reinforce residents’ entitlement to clean air but do not unnecessarily violate rights.
And limiting the ban to areas within 25 feet of living spaces leaves many open spots on campus available for smoking, including the entire academic quad and the Plaza.
The plan would also give residents leverage when faced with smoke entering their rooms through open windows. It recognizes the importance of smoke-free living conditions and offers residents a formalized mechanism to ensure these rights.
In the end, any ban on smoking constitutes a largely symbolic gesture, and for logistical reasons, enforcement should not be particularly strict. Simply by its existence, though, the ban empowers residents—especially those on the first floor who are most affected by outside smoking—to take action when they find their air quality affected.
Although banning smoking directly outside of residence halls is a welcome measure, any further restrictions are unnecessary and would place an undue burden on smokers. Making the choice to smoke in an open space that has no impact on residents is a personal one, and regulating smoking in these spaces would impose values and violate rights.
The University should not be in the business of regulating morality or individual decision making, but it should make reasonable interventions to preserve the right to clean air for students in residence halls.
To this end, a 25-foot no-smoking barrier around residential areas will do.