Our campus is supposedly based on principles of openness and transparency, and this is a ban likely to directly affect a significant portion of our population. Public health is an impossible initiative without public support, and the University made no aim to reach a public consensus before implementing its chosen policy.The editorial raises further concerns that the ban may be too "heavy handed" and that it will ostracize smokers. It also questions why the policy bans all tobaccos, including snuffs and chewing tobaccos that don't emit harmful second-hand smoke.
If it is the aim of the administration to reduce the number of tobacco users on campus or create greater awareness among the student population, such aims would certainly have been better served by an extensive debate within the community. By allowing the student body a say in discussions on tobacco policy, the administration could have created a policy more in line with the views of those it seeks to aid.
Support Local Journalism.
Join the Riverfront Times Press Club
Local journalism is information. Information is power. And we believe everyone deserves access to accurate independent coverage of their community and state. Our readers helped us continue this coverage in 2020, and we are so grateful for the support.
Help us keep this coverage going in 2021. Whether it's a one-time acknowledgement of this article or an ongoing membership pledge, your support goes to local-based reporting from our small but mighty team.
Join the Riverfront Times Club for as little as $5 a month.