Aaron Martin was never a smoker himself. The master student International Management supports the new ban. “There is so much data available on the health issues caused by smoking that I don’t think we can tolerate it any longer,” he believes. “I think many people smoke because of the social aspect. Imagine: you’ve just finished a tricky exam and you see your friends all having a smoke outside – this will make it much more likely that you’ll want to light one up too. By banning smoking from campus, that particular aspect is gone.”
“I don’t think any efforts are needed to make students more aware of the consequences of smoking; most people know what the risks are,” he continues. “The university could, however, do more for the students who start smoking out of stress. The university could for instance educate them on alternative means of dealing with stress, such as meditation. That’s a lot healthier.”
Counter-productive
On the other hand, master student Financial Economics Dennis de Jong is happy with the smoking ban. “Before, you used to encounter groups of smokers everywhere,” he says. “Although I believe that it’s their personal choice, it does bother me when they’re a nuisance to others. I really dislike the smell, and there are the medical consequences of imposed second-hand smoking to consider.”
He’s not sure whether people will abide by the ban. “I see fewer people smoking on campus, but surely some students are having sneaky ciggies in dark corners, because they think it’s too far a walk off-campus, for instance.
Second-hand smoking
On the other hand, master student Financial Economics Dennis de Jong is happy with the smoking ban. “Before, you used to encounter groups of smokers everywhere,” he says. “Although I believe that it’s their personal choice, it does bother me when they’re a nuisance to others. I really dislike the smell, and there are the medical consequences of imposed second-hand smoking to consider.”
He’s not sure whether people will abide by the ban. “I see fewer people smoking on campus, but surely some students are having sneaky ciggies in dark corners, because they think it’s too far a walk off-campus, for instance.
Neater
Dimitar Manov, exchange student International Business Economics & Business, is not too fussed about the smoking ban, but he understands both sides. “I’m not a smoker, so I don’t really care whether on-campus smoking is allowed or not. But I do understand why it’s been banned,” he says. “The campus looks a lot neater. An educational institution like Erasmus University doesn’t want to be associated with smoking. I believe the university is mainly doing it for the image it’s presenting to the outside world.”
Like Sophie, he doesn’t believe the smoking ban will work. “Whenever I’m on campus and looking around, there’s always someone smoking somewhere. I think a smoking ban is too extreme. It would be better to have a small smoking zone near every building. That way everyone’s happy.”
From Erasmus Magazine’s misrepresentative title “Smoke-free campus: responsible decision or counter-productive?” for the very pro smokefree campus comments from students actually interviewed in the article to the irresponsible and juvenile “Free to Smoke Zone” cartoon, it appears that more than sentiments of staff or students, it is Erasmus Magazine itself which is against the inevitable. A national law prohibiting smoking on the campuses of all institutions of learning countrywide, EM’s attempt to foment controversy where there is little, is either just clickbait or jousting at windmills.
Granted, EUR could have done better at communicating the law and what that means for students. This would have happened normally, but we are not in normal times.
Furthermore, there are a number of structural issues preventing a smooth transition to the current regulations. For example, at EUR there are no experts on tobacco control in the Smokefree Working Group. Only recently did the university form a “think tank” as an afterthought to address this oversight. In not putting the science of going smokefree on campuses first and foremost, the university has abdicated its responsibility to be science-based in its policy making. Instead, in shying away from actually effective, clear, and unambiguous actions, it is setting itself up to fail on every dimension. Lack of clear communication of the new rules and support for smokers is bound to make some smokers angry because they won’t know the details, and it won’t be clear what the rules or penalties are. EUR’s delay on this issue will also make nonsmokers upset because the national law says that people can’t smoke on campuses of educational institutions but EUR has not yet effective achieved, based on a cowardliness to stand behind clear and fair preventative measures and penalties. And EUR may even fail to comply with the national law, which could cost our university fines from the government, bleeding our university unnecessarily, when we have already suffered budget cuts. Plus, EUR’s potential failure to comply with laws sours our reputation versus business and governmental partners with whom we might pursue future contact.
Especially in times of corona, which is a respiratory disease, smoking will only make it worse. If we have social distancing on campus, lowering the quality of education and costing faculties untold hours of suffering in adjusting to the double responsibility of hybrid education, then we must certainly do our due diligence in not creating more disease vectors on campus. If we’re wearing masks to prevent viruses from entering our nasal passages, it makes only sense to get rid of non-essential pollution sources that weaken our immune system and predispose us to sickness.
Comments are closed.