The Observer, December 1, 2006
Volume XXXIX, Issue 12
Open forum raises questions, issues of smoking on campus
Students who often find themselves maneuvering through crowds of smokers to enter buildings may soon be breathing more freely.
On Nov. 21 USG held an open forum to discuss possible resolutions affecting smokers on the Case campus. Although no conclusions were reached, the forum sparked debate among the students present.
When asked their opinions before the forum, there were mixed feelings by those attending. "There should be some sort of smoking ban on campus," said Ben McCabe, a first-year student. "When people smoke outside, they force other students to walk through secondhand smoke."
Some students took a different approach, calling any possible action against smoking detrimental to all involved. Another group felt that smokers were not represented enough.
The members of USG were hopeful, though, and presented their three resolutions.
The original intent of the forum was to edit these resolutions before bringing them up on a referendum for Case's undergraduate community. The winning resolution would then be suggested to the Provost's office.
The first resolution was to make Case a smoke-free environment, allowing smoking only on public sidewalks, and not on University property.
The second would create designated smoking areas in the residential communities and the main quad.
In the third, smoking would not be allowed under over hangs, on steps, or near ventilation systems, doors, or on balconies.
The facilitators explained at the beginning of the forum that the aim was to work out the kinks of these policies, not to debate the need for a policy's inception.
There were three tiers to the discussion: one general discussion, one discussion focusing on where the possible designated areas for Resolution II would be, and another general discussion to close the night.
The overwhelming input from those assembled was that the current courtesy policy in the residential halls should be enforced, and that Case should offer smoke-free and smoking housing.
Despite the original appearance that smokers were under-represented, they turned out to be the most vocal group present, speaking out at creating a policy that "herds" smokers together in a designated area, because it causes further "isolation of an already isolated group on campus."
The talk was becoming heated when the facilitators decided to move onto the next topic, with non-smokers asserting that they have a right to not be near cigarette smoke, while smokers asserted that they have a right to smoke.
On the second resolution, the assembly generally rejected the idea out of hand, until the USG facilitators brought them back on topic and asked for, rather than input on the resolution itself, just suggestions of places to put designated areas.
Smokers did not react well to being forced to stand without shelter while smoking, generally all agreeing that, were shelters created, they would not mind nearly as much.
On the second general discussion, the majority of suggestions focused on getting shelters, in case of the second resolution passing, and possibly leaving the current situation alone and as it is.
One of the more interesting suggestions was the creation of a non-smoking Residential College. This idea, if it weren't for the limited amount of space within each Residential College, could be a possible solution.
Interim President Eastwood spoke for himself during the second discussion, and he focused not on smoking policies but on the addictive property of cigarettes and suggested a smoking cessation program as an alternative to out right banning or restricting smoking.
"Smoking is an addiction, and I stand here before you to say that without apology and authorization to," said Eastwood.
Eastwood also implicated that a smoking ban would not be effective because of the fact that Case is a college environment, and not a business. The discussion turned back, livelier than before, with more creative suggestions, such as making one entrance for each building a smoking entrance to allow smokers the shelters of overhangs.
One vocal smoker asserted that the university needs to have real studies on outdoor secondhand smoke effects. If there are no adverse effects (as he believed) then the University had no right to further restrict smoking beyond the indoors, which is what current studies focused on secondhand smoking are based on.
Discomfort is not a valid reason to ban or restrict outdoor smoking, according to one attendee.
After the forum, opinions were still just as mixed as before. Some people called the forum "pointless and ludicrous," while others found it efficient.
A larger smoker turnout, and more individuals with health problems, would have made the forum more effective, according to first-year Asha Talati. In her opinion "people don't have the right to judge" those who smoke.
The opinions of those involved in USG were generally the same. The official opinion of the group was that it went well, and it was the biggest USG forum to date.
"USG is a small population, so it's good to hear from students," according to Adam Rupe, USG Vice President of Public Relations. "It's good that a diverse group of people came, and USG will talk about how this affects the population."
USG is still accepting input and suggestions about these resolutions; contact development@usg.cwru.edu for more information.
