Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Vassar considers smoking ban

DEC suggests unification of smoking policies

Senior Editor

Published: Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Updated: Monday, March 15, 2010 00:03

Vassar Smoking Policy

Kathleen Mehocic/Photography Editor

A student smoker reaches for his pack of cigarettes. The Drugs and Alcohol Education Committee recently made a recommendation to the Committee on College Life that Vassar gradually unify and enforce its current smoking policies. The recommendation will be discussed in March.

After a request from the Committee on College Life (CCL), the Drugs and Alcohol Education Committee (DEC) has created a recommendation for ways to phase out or significantly reduce the areas where smoking is allowed on campus. "We were tasked by the CCL to look into smoking on campus and to make recommendations based on current trends and what our surveys have said," said Head Athletics Trainer and Chair of the DEC Jeffrey Carter.

"It is premature to discuss what if scenarios at this point, but they are questions that will have to be addressed," wrote Associate Director of Security and member of DEC Kim Squillace in an e-mailed statement.

The first phase of the plan includes an update and unification of College smoking policies across campus. Currently, Section 23 of College Regulations states, "Smoking is forbidden in all buildings on campus and within fifty feet of all building entrances. Additionally, smoking is forbidden on the College Center Circle and Patio." Students caught smoking in these areas first receive a warning and then a $25 fine per incident.

However, Carter noted that many buildings and offices only advertise a 25-foot minimum smoking distance from entrances. The DEC proposal recommends that all buildings advertise the 50 rather than 25-foot rule, generally increase signage and encourage smoking further away from buildings by moving cigarette butt containers. When these policies are made more visible, efforts to educate students about these regulations would increase.

A slightly more problematic clause in this current regulation is the imposition of warnings and fines. Though the Security Department technically has the ability to issue fines for smoking violations, according to Squillace, officers rarely mete out fines because no one is really aware of the punishments. "Security is not currently charged with enforcing the 50 feet smoking by issuing fines; however, we will remind people they should be 50 feet from the building," said Squillace.

Putting this part of College policy into practice would come under step two of the DEC's proposal, and the Security Department would wait to impose fines until about six months after efforts to make rules more visible had been completed. "We suggested that if [the CCL] were going to continue with the current policy then they needed to do some education with that," said Carter, indicating that fines would not be imposed immediately despite the fact that the policy already exists. "Security was even a little hesitant to do that because no one really knows the rules, so that was our big thing—don't just go from zero to 100 miles per an hour."

"Security isn't excited about enforcing that," said DEC Student Representative Carson Robinson '12. "Security is almost on the same page as the students. Enforcing policies or enforcing fines is something you do after education."

This second phase would also encompass a more formal reduction in smoking by the designation of certain smoke-free zones, which could include the Walker Athletic Complex and Ballantine Field, the "health corridor" between Baldwin Health Center and Metcalf House, and Main Circle. After the reinstatement of fines, the College might also designate certain areas for smoking, possibly using gazebos that could be paid for with the collected fines. This step would be similar to the smoking policy of the Culinary Institute of America, which has a smoke-free campus except for specially allocated gazebos. The Committee's recommendation suggested that this would emphasize the social aspect of smoking and give smokers a place to go that would be somewhat protected from the elements.

The third and final step would be the establishment of Vassar as a smoke-free campus, though the decision to pursue this goal is now up to CCL. "We actually didn't put pressure on it either way of saying this would be a good idea or a bad idea," said Carter. "This would just be another step that the College could take."

Though increasing awareness of College policies and reducing exposure to second-hand smoke is a definite plan, the ultimate goal of becoming a smoke-free campus is still up for consideration. "I think they're having second thoughts about that," said Robinson. "It doesn't sound possible to me personally. That's everyone's ideal, and we'll see if it remains an actual goal."

Robinson did consider that the change would bring mixed reactions from students. "[Non-smokers] probably just don't really care," he said, but "for people who do smoke, yeah, it's going to be a problem. I think there's going to be a big reaction."

"Some people will be very happy about it," said Carter. "For those who do smoke, I think it will be a little bit of a headache."

Part of the potentially varied reaction to any changes in smoking policies is a disparity between the perception of smoking's prevalence and how many students actually smoke. "The last DEC Survey completed in 2008 and [the American College Health Association survey] completed in 2007 reported that less than three percent of Vassar College students report smoking daily, and about 20 percent have used cigarettes in the last 30 days," wrote Director of Health Education Renee Pabst. "Students may be shocked or disagree with these statistics, but students overestimate how many of their peers are engaging in tobacco use leading to misperceptions about usage."

According to Squillace, "I have been here approximately 13 years, and in my opinion smoking has increased with our student population."

The method of hemming in smoking on campus is also a question—whether it is preferable to reduce smoking's prevalence through regulations or educational efforts. "For a lot of people (a high average compared to other schools, as far as I can tell), smoking is a part of daily student life and for a lot of people it's not. In some crowds it's taboo to smoke and in others it's taboo to ask people to put out their cigarettes," wrote Irina Kaplan '10, who is currently enrolled in the smoking cessation class. "The way to reduce smoking among students is not harsher rules, it's adult education."

One way that the College is already trying to increase smoking education is by offering smoking cessation classes to all members of the campus community for $5. "This is the first year that we have ever offered a smoking cessation workshop," wrote Pabst. "I think the people who have chosen to take the class have appreciated having the class and have found it helpful."

Because the recommendations have to be reviewed by the CCL, the timeline for the plan has not been set, and both Carter and Robinson were adamant that the College will not make the transition immediately. "They're not going to do anything drastic or really fast," said Robinson.

"Our goal was to get it to them this semester so that if they decide to make any changes that they can go into effect at the beginning of next year," said Carter. Any changes that go into effect early next year would fall under step one plans to increase awareness and align the policies of individual buildings with those outlined in the College Handbook. According to Carter, "I think the fact that they asked us for this information says that there is at least a push to make things uniform, let alone what the next step would be after that."

 

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

18 comments

Carson Robinson
Mon Mar 15 2010 04:39
Hi I'm Carson Robinson. I'm the student rep for the DEC.

It's really important to realize that using PUNISHMENT (such as fines and suspension for college students, or time-out for young children) can backfire by pushing the targeted behaviors (drinking, smoking, mischief etc.) underneath the radar. Security is totally savvy about this; better to let students smoke outside than have them smoke in their rooms where they might start a fire; better to let students get away from a party than chase them on a slippery sidewalk where they might break their drunk ass.

Therefore, we really want to find other ways of reducing smoking. Security has backed up this idea on the DEC; punishment is the last resort.

I also want to reiterate that Security will be the ones who will have to "Just smack 'em with a fine, already," because some members of our community are "sick of them standing in my doorways" (to quote a comment below from Peacock). Maybe these members of the community should take matters into their own hands, rather than deferring to Security yet another job that nobody else wants to do.

These comments are really helpful. Thanks you guys! I'll bring some of this up at the next DEC meeting. If you want me to bring up anything in particular, email me at carobinson@vassar.com. Like seriously it would totally make my day.

Anonymous
Sun Mar 14 2010 03:50
Smoking should be banned, end of story. It is harmful to others and selfish to think that smokers should be able to freely smoke whenever they want. Designated areas will not protect bystanders from secondhand smoke. Only if there are areas designed in which the smoke can be contained effectively should these designated areas be considered. Smoking is an addiction, and it is sad. For those who are addicted, they can easily seek help. For those who are not yet addicted, banning smoking from campus will help eliminate the possibility of their habit becoming an addiction. We do not want to encourage smoking. Nor do we want to endorse the evils of second hand smoke. Let's not put us all at risk for those who wish to smoke and pollute our lungs. We should take preventative actions when we can, and this is one such instance!
Anonymous
Wed Mar 3 2010 19:21
Hello, Im interested in putting together a proposal for our local school campus. My biggest questions are with regard to visitors on campus, at games... How will the notifications of this regulation be made other than signage that is rarely noted or followed? I have an idea of periodic announcements over pa system. And how to control/monitor the nearly continuous traffic flow out of the paid area onto designated smoking area...?
Anonymous
Tue Mar 2 2010 13:17
Trying to fight banning smoking is up there with trying to fight slavery. It's the same thing only you are a slave to the corporations.
Anonymous
Mon Mar 1 2010 15:43
I'm not sure what's you're saying, Cato. I don't think you could find a smoker who didn't know it was killing them. As a smoker, I know how harmful it is, but it's my choice. I think Vassar understand this. However, I also understand that Vassar's image is weakened by outsiders' perceptions of how prevalent smoking is on campus. I would be OK with instituting designated smoking areas. But making Vassar smoke-free would be a huge mistake. You would see more people smoking in their rooms so they wouldn't be seen on campus, and that wouldn't help anybody. Vassar can't become an airport.

Also, note that most of Security smokes, as do many members of the staff and more than a few faculty. At the end of the day it might be worth it to CONTAIN smoking to certain areas, but a ban would be a real infringement on right and probably have much worse effects than leaving things as they are now.

MC Halfpenny
Fri Feb 26 2010 18:23
I'm concerned by mikey reback's argument about a possible ban forcing students to smoke in their rooms not for air quality, but for the fire risk that it poses to smokers and to non-smokers alike.
Patrick Chabot
Fri Feb 26 2010 10:59
I think it’s important to know that I am a nonsmoker and also find it a gross and sorrow-full habit. For those of you who want to ban smoking, who do you think you are that you get to tell a whole section of society what to do and what choices to make? Why do you think your opinions about what's right and wrong matter at all to anybody other than yourself? They don't. Cato, why should we have banned smoking just because the surgeon general said it's unhealthy? Just because New York has restricted personal choices in the past, that makes it okay? I hope I don't even have to point out to what a poor argument that is, which if taken far enough would put you at the doorstep of fascism. Enforcing anything on anybody else, even if it's for "good" (who are you who gets to decide what good is, what unhealthy is?) is the behavior of a Nazi. I don't care if you are, you're allowed to be whatever you whatever you want to be (I at least have enough manners to allow you that, even if you won't allow others the courtesy to be smokers), I just hope all of you have thought about the implications of what it is you're doing. It’s not what you mandate, it’s the very fact that you’re mandating anything at all, forcing your opinions and worldview onto someone else that makes a Nazi. You can mandate “good” things (it’s not even up to us to decide if they are ultimately good), like education, eating vegetables, brushing your teeth, etc. and that is still, I believe, wrong. The amount of drinking on this campus could be seen as a public embarrasment. I'll bet you can find hundreds of people who think that looks trashy too. I'll bet you can find hundreds of doctors who say it's bad for you. But you could also find hundreds of doctors who say alchohol isn't such a bad thing, it promotes social cohesion, some say it's heart-healthy etc.--the point is not whether it is definitively good or bad for you, but that it's all dependent on what parameters you and YOU ALONE want to judge on. Once you have made that judgment that's great, but it doesn't apply to a single other person on the planet other than yourself, and you don’t get to say “I think we should ban drinking because it looks trashy.” Who cares what you think? Nobody but yourself! No one cares what I think except for myself! What does that even mean, that you think something looks trashy? What is this concept of trashy? What makes something trashy? What makes something not trashy? Is literal trash trashy? Your concept of cigarette smoking looking trashy is just as culturally determined as it was in the 30s and 40s when it was culturally determined that it was actually classy and the mark of refinement. Neither are right or wrong or closer to the true essence of what, if anything cigarette smoking actually “is.” And neither are more or less valid as the foundation of what to tell others to think about it—such a foundation doesn’t exist.I think Mikey had a fantastic point when he brought up vegetarianism. I am also a vegetarian, and I find the way that meat is prepared and consumed on campus to be extremely offensive and reprehensible. I can guarantee you I find having to smell the meat in ACDC every bit as offensive as you find it offensive having to walk by smokers to get into your dorm, and considering it takes half-an-hour to eat in ACDC and ten seconds to swipe in at the door, I have to put up with it much longer. Not only that, the health benefits of vegetarianism could and do fill hundreds of books. Do I try to legislate vegetarianism on other people? Absolutely not, because I know that I came to these beliefs on my own absolutely subjective experience, and I can't expect anyone else to have had the same experiences or want the same thing for themselves. All of our opinions are based on our experiences, and every experience we have had is obviously valid (is there even such a thing as an "invalid" experience? To have experienced it at all makes it a truth, a fact of your life), and so our opinions are only referential to our own characters and ego-histories. I don't bring vegetarianism up in conversation because I know that someone else's choice to eat meat is every bit as valid as my choice not to. Likewise, someone's choice to smoke is every bit as valid as someone's choice not to. To legislate in either direction is insane. If one of you fires back at me about "oh yeah, but smoking affects more than just the one person smoking" save yourself the trouble of sounding like an idiot, because you're missing the point. Every choice we make, even the most mundane things, involves countless other people. Smoking is hardly the only thing for which this is true. Someone's choice to eat meat involves me, because I have to smell it on their breath and their sweat later. And so what do I do? Rather than browbeat them or preach to them about the "benefits" of Vegetarianism (I put benefits in quotes because those benefits are real only to me and to me alone) I GET OVER IT. Sit down and...
mikey reback
Fri Feb 26 2010 06:46
"You say that smoking is a personal choice. As someone suffering from asthma, a family history of cancer, and extreme distaste for the smell of smoke, I can tell you that your smoking affects my life, and so your choice is NOT strictly personal."

excuse this moment of insensitivity, but i don't see how your family history of cancer has anything to do with smoking at vassar college. you have a distaste for the smell of smoke? i have a distaste for the smell of meat, but i would never ask vassar to ban meat all together just because i don't like it. and finally, as far as your asthma, as i stated in my last comment -- most places in the world, people smoke outdoors. while i'm sympathetic to your condition and would gladly smoke further away from a door/window/you if you asked me to, i would guess that wherever you are from, people smoke. i'm guessing wherever you will go after vassar, people will also smoke. (have you considered tokyo?)

i take issue with you trying to employ a rhetoric based around the idea of "selfishness." just as easily as you can claim we're selfish for smoking, we can claim these policies are selfish on the part of the small number of students (of which it would appear you are one) that dislike smoking. it's not too ridiculous to ask that a person should be able to smoke at his or her home. because most of us live on campus, this campus is our home. i will gladly refrain from smoking indoors to respect my peers, so long as my right to smoke outdoors, in a manner which is by and large only harmful to me, is maintained.

i'd like to end by saying that these comments from the anti-smokers concern me. you guys have so much animosity towards smokers, and are willing to make such broad, sweeping generalizations about our behavior and our character. it seems as though you're being extremely passive aggressive -- if you would actually act on the behaviors that bother you, in a polite manner and within reason, you might find that the smokers and non-smokers can in fact live together on this campus harmoniously. if all you do is bitch and whine anonymously on the misc website, and support these rather extreme and unnecessary measures, the smoker/non-smoker gap will only widen and become more contentious.

Anonymous
Thu Feb 25 2010 22:55
The comment below me is grounds for banning smoking from campus altogether. According to this student, rather than walking to a designated smoking location or risking a fine by smoking elsewhere outside, he would instead smoke inside the dorms, despite acknowledging that such a habit "IS legitimately unhealthy for nonsmokers."

This is an incredibly dangerous, inconsiderate, and selfish statement. If this truly is how little Vassar smokers value their fellow students' well-being, then the 3-step plan to ban smoking from campus is both necessary and overdue.

You say that smoking is a personal choice. As someone suffering from asthma, a family history of cancer, and extreme distaste for the smell of smoke, I can tell you that your smoking affects my life, and so your choice is NOT strictly personal.

mikey reback
Thu Feb 25 2010 14:50
TH senior, the secondhand smoke article focuses on the effects of smoking INdoors ("The only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure is to completely eliminate smoking in indoor spaces."), as does the majority of the thirdhand smoke article (also, it seems to suggest that "thirdhand" smoke is predominately a problem for small children who crawl around on the floor, which, to my knowledge, most of us refrain from doing anyway). anais, the smokey smell on clothes will not go away just because kids aren't allowed to smoke on campus. keep in mind that most regular smokers smoke because they are addicted, and addiction doesn't really give a shit about vassar's smoking policies.

on that note -- let's think about this for a second. as a smoker, i can say wholeheartedly that if, on a cold winter day, i'm in my room and i want a cigarette, the chances that i will walk off campus (or to a gazebo that may or may not be conveniently located) just to smoke are pretty slim. but if, by being outside, i risk the chance of getting fined, what am i going to do? like i said, it seems unlikely that vassar's smoking policies will force me to stop smoking (most ex-smokers will tell you that the only way to quit is to actually WANT to quit of your own accord). thus, i might just decide to smoke in a private space where i am less likely to be seen -- i.e., my room.

understand that the measures outlined in this article are unlikely to significantly reduce the regular smoking population at vassar. instead, i believe there's a very good chance it will increase the amount of smoking in dorms, which IS legitimately unhealthy for nonsmokers. further, to make these policies truly effective will require an increased effort from security -- which will result in both a waste of money for the school, and will detract from time security could spend actually protecting us (frankly, with the somewhat alarming increase in "campus alerts" this year, the idea that they would be getting paid to dish out fines to smokers is a little bizarre). i'd also like to point out how insulting these measures would be to faculty and staff that smoke.

there is no need to further stratify this campus over an issue like smoking. kids like to bitch and moan on the misc website about how they just hate smokers lingering around doorways and the like -- why don't you just say something? are you that scared of us? we don't bite (most of us, anyway).

and if you just really, really, realllyyy can't stand smoking... maybe you should move to tokyo?

Anonymous
Thu Feb 25 2010 11:34
"Paternalism: the policy or practice on the part of people is positions of authority of restricting the freedom and responsibilities of those subordinate to them in the subordinates' supposed best interest."

Fuck you, Vassar. I came here for a reason... I thought that it would be a place where I would not have my personal freedoms limited. Guess I was wrong.

Deirdre
Wed Feb 24 2010 20:21
In a world where security is already unable to adequately protect our immediate physical safety (Read: the recent incident at the TA bridge, bomb scare in Main), does it really make sense to ask them to focus their attention on fining students for smoking?

I support designated smoking areas, more rigorous enforcement around the front door of the library, etc., but an outright ban is not feasible. Should campus workers who smoke on the college center loading dock really be asked to quit the habit, quit their jobs, or somehow leave campus to indulge? Students are not the only smokers, after all.

Mrs. Peacock
Wed Feb 24 2010 17:43
“Security isn’t excited about enforcing that,” said DEC Student Representative Carson Robinson ’12. “Security is almost on the same page as the students. Enforcing policies or enforcing fines is something you do after education.”

WHAT does this mean? What do fines have to do with education? Non-smoking education? Oh.

Everyone born after 1985 already knows, and has known since they were a child, that smoking cigarettes is addictive, causes cancer, and is generally a bad idea. Most, and I might bet ALL of us, went through DARE or some other anti-smoking program. Anti-smoking commercials are constantly running on TV and the radio, and there are ads in magazines and on billboards. And then there are the warnings on the actual cigarette packages themselves. You can't tell me that smokers haven't noticed those.

Seriously, young smokers don't need any more education. They've obviously made their choices, and now they need to live with them. Just smack 'em with a fine, already. I'm sick of them standing in my doorways.

TH senior
Wed Feb 24 2010 17:39
4south while I don't want to go as far as Cato or Anais, I would contend that there is a harm in it for nonsmokers.

We all know about second hand smoke, and the amount we are exposed to around campus is unfortunate. Moreover there is also the addition of third hand smoke with smokers constantly carry traces of and which is also a harmful carcinogen. The sad truth is that their smoking constantly presents a challenge to our health.

Resources:
second hand smoke: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

third hand smoke: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/health/research/03smoke.html

Cato
Wed Feb 24 2010 17:18
We restrict personal choices all the time - NYC banned trans fats, walking around with open cans of alcohol is against the law, seatbelts are mandatory, etc.

If you want to smoke, go to a designated smoking area. And security ought to start fining those who smoke within 50 feet from building entrances, as per campus policy.

Anais Goldwater
Wed Feb 24 2010 17:01
I agree with Cato. Smoking is, frankly, a foolish and deadly habit that makes students look ignorant and trashy. Smokers also seem to forget that for those who are allergic to smoke, specifically cigarette smoke, the lingering smell outside of the library or even on clothes in the classroom can cause massive headaches, the throat to swell, and other complications. Smoking on campus is simply inconsiderate and ridiculously moronic.
4South
Wed Feb 24 2010 16:56
Smoking is a personal choice, and as long as it's not done inside or near building entrances, there's no harm in it for nonsmokers. Smokers should be more considerate of the nonsmoking population, but an outright ban is unnecessary and inappropriately antagonistic.
Cato
Wed Feb 24 2010 15:33
What took so long? Banning smoking is something we should have done 40 years ago when the Surgeon General's report came out!

The amount of smoking we have on this campus is a public embarrasment - educated young people should know better.







log out