Established 1826 — Oldest College Newspaper West of the Alleghenies
NEWS

No ifs, ands or butts?

Point

This is the last semester you will be able to puff on a cigarette on your way to class or take a smoke break during a marathon session at King Library. In the fall, all Miami University campuses-yes, even Luxembourg-will go smoke free.

On May 3, 2007, the Ohio Department of Health officially began enforcing the statewide ban on smoking in restaurants, workplaces and any building that could be considered a public place.

Around the same time, Miami University Provost Jeffrey Herbst formed an ad-hoc committee with the objective of evaluating the effects of smoking on campus. You may remember being one of about 6,000 students who took an online survey enquiring if or how smoking affected you on campus. Around half of the students surveyed supported a total campus ban on smoking.

At the recommendation of the committee, Herbst, and in turn, President David Hodge accepted the proposal to make Miami a smoke-free campus. In a Miami news release back in August, Hodge cited studies showing tobacco smoke to be a "major contributor to indoor air pollution," among other negative side effects of smoking.

But that quote caught my eye. "Indoor air pollution?" Seems like an odd way to argue for an outdoor ban. And this becomes the central question at hand: is a total campus smoking ban necessary?

Let me take a moment to be fully transparent: I'm a smoker.

I fully support the ban on smoking in public places and the previous university ban on smoking within 25 feet of building entrances or 50 feet of residence halls. In any confined area you're essentially making the decision to light up for yourself and anyone around you-willing or not-thanks to second-hand smoke.

While the detrimental health effects of smoking are crystal-clear (various forms of cancer, cardiovascular disease, respiratory ailments), the freedom of choice remains with the individual whether to smoke or not ... unless, of course, you attend or work for Miami University.

Here is where the plot thickens, the conspiracy theories bubble up and the nefarious speculation mounts. Is Miami University concerned with the non-smokers' or the smokers' health? Perhaps they're instead concerned smoke creeping into buildings, causing "indoor air pollution."

Enjoy what you're reading?
Signup for our newsletter

The chances of being affected by second-hand smoke outdoors are exceedingly slim, where a few cubic centimeters of smoke are quickly lost among a few trillion cubic centimeters of atmosphere. I don't smoke with enough frequency or consistency to care for my own sake, but what about Miami cafeteria, physical facilities or any other staff who revel in the opportunity to break up the day and have a smoke for ten minutes at a time?

It could very well be about the university scheming to save a buck by trying to cut back on insurance costs. Every student must have insurance, through the school or privately. Ask anyone who's applied for a job and ticked the "yes" column next to the question: "Do you smoke?" They don't have that job, because insuring someone who's ensured a lifetime of health complications is financial suicide. It would seem as though Miami officials spotted an opening in the wake of the state ban. The chance to ride off the momentum of that decision was an opportunity too good to pass up, and so the university made as invasive of a decision as its powers would allow, banning smoking on campus.

At least consider the implications of potentially similar health-based decisions. Sixty percent of American adults are technically obese-do we ban similarly unhealthy foods? If you're underweight should you be "fattened" up?

The point is this: Smoking outdoors negates most of the effects of second-hand smoke, and if an individual chooses to smoke, so be it. When an institution begins to regulate personal health decisions, we should all feel a bit uneasy. I'll look after myself, thank you ... and will try not to blow smoke in your face.

Michael Lengellengelmc@muohio.edu

Counterpoint

As of next semester non-smokers will no longer have to dodge the gray haze that hangs outside the doors of Harrison Hall or any other academic building on campus to make it to class on time. That's right-Miami University is going smoke free.

During my four years at Miami there have been meager attempts at limiting the areas people can puff away that last failed exam or all-nighter. The truth is that despite their best intentions, these restrictions simply did not work.

The ever-intimidating chalk line that served as a 25-foot barrier between smokers and our red brick buildings was by no means the Great Wall of China. Chalk doesn't work to hold children in their own area for foursquare on a playground. Did the university really think that a chalk line would prevent college students from huddling near doors to fill their lungs with tar in the dead of winter?

The effectiveness of that ban was just like the signs that we remember as underclassmen that said, "the chalk line will fade away." It is impossible to truly enforce the old limitations. Miami's attempts to protect non-smokers from second hand smoke will only work if the ban is campus wide.

Beyond the annoyance and danger of second hand smoke. Both the university and you have a vested interest in reducing or eliminating the amount that students and employees light up. It seems lately that it is cheaper to purchase Paris Hilton's coveted sidekick than to attain health insurance.

In 2006, health insurance premiums for employers increased two times the rate of inflation or 7.7 percent. And who is the cost of this hike in insurance expenses transferred to? You, or more realistically: mom and dad. The point is that the university is trying to cut costs whatever way it can.

Just last week the board of trustees announced that tuition would increase for out-of-state students by yet another 6 percent next year. Hope those of you from Chicago, Atlanta, or any other areas outside the Buckeye State are excited. The callus truth is that by reducing smoking, you reduce cost.

A 40-year-old female who smokes would pay $200.80 a month in premiums here in warm and cheerful Oxford, Ohio-according to eHealthinsurance.com. A woman that same age who did not smoke would pay $167.33. That is a difference of $33.47 a month and $401.64 a year. Though this does not seem like that large of savings, view Miami as an entity of more than 3,500 benefit-eligible employees. The difference adds up quickly.

It may seem cold-hearted or Scrooge-like to put this merely in monetary terms. There are other benefits though to this initiative that truly can benefit the lives of employees on campus.

The university also will provide free support for those trying to quit smoking. Newsflash: smoking is not exactly a healthy habit. Though this assistance also helps to reduce their costs by people who are trying to quit be successful, it also helps employees and students kick a dangerous habit.

A survey of 6,157 students here at Miami showed that 52 percent of students favored a total ban on smoking. What is more important though is that 62 percent supported it if it offered the support for smoker trying to quit-the exact same aid that the university is currently offering. Call it a bandwagon if you like, but I call it majority rule.

Sadly, I won't be around for when this ban is in full effect. You will no longer feel like you are entering the American Gladiator's Arena as you trek into King Library to do battle finals week-so go on, enjoy that smoke-free latte.

Jessica Kahanekkahanejl@muohio.edu


Read More

Trending