The tobacco-free policy on campus has been in effect since January, and we think it is time to stand back and look at the good it has done.
The tobacco policy and its supposed consequences that rule out tobacco use on campus are slowly seeping into the back of most students’ minds, but it is still a battle for tobacco users.
We have gone over the pros and cons of having a campus-wide tobacco-free policy several times in the past, but here is a recap of the two main reasons tobacco was banned.
1. Tobacco is dangerous to the health of everyone, smokers and bystanders alike.
2. Tobacco products leave nasty stains where snuff is spit and cigarette butts are dropped.
These problems came to the attention of Nicholls administration due to multiple complaints from students, faculty, staff and visitors about the disrespect many tobacco users had towards non-smokers and campus aesthetics.
In the end, it all boiled down to disgust and prejudice against people who choose to endanger their own lives.
The counter-arguments of these main points included:
- Non-smokers should stay out of the way of tobacco users (or vice versa).
- Not all tobacco users are disrespectful of campus aesthetics; thus, the whole is being punished for the few.
The counter-arguments are obviously weak; thus, the general public won out over the tobacco users, and tobacco products were banned on campus.
The only reasonable alternative at the time was to create designated tobacco areas, but this idea was shot down due to a shortage of funds.
But now that the tobacco policy has been around for a while, what has it actually accomplished? In a typical college-era fashion, most tobacco users (including staff and faculty members) have rebelled against the policy and have continued to use tobacco on campus. Some have sought so-called hiding places, such as the outdoor patio area in Peltier Hall, while others have simply chosen to continue their habit out in the open, regardless of consequences.
Administrators may see this policy as a work-in-progress or a failure. We believe it is the latter, as it has failed its ultimate purpose to end tobacco use on campus. However, there was an unexpected success since it was implemented.
While the tobacco policy has not ended tobacco use on campus entirely, it has restricted its use to certain areas. Tobacco users who refuse to quit using on campus now generally frequent secluded, low-traffic areas of Nicholls. Thus, the general aesthetics of Nicholls campus has retained its integrity excepting those few areas tobacco users frequent. Also, non-smokers know where tobacco users smoke and can avoid those areas, which solves the problem of harming the health of those who do not wish to damage themselves in that way.
But does this not sound like something we suggested earlier – designated tobacco areas? Why did we not make those again?
We were told in the past that it would cost too much money to create designated tobacco areas, much to our confusion. All it would take is someone to pick areas of campus and put up a sign.
Hopefully, the failed policy and its unforeseen consequences have shown administrators how stubborn tobacco users are in finding ways to continue their habits without bothering the general public.
If designated areas can be created accidentally for free, we imagine changing the policy to include these areas as official tobacco areas would cost just as little.
