Extinguishing smoking rights

Categorized | Opinions

Posted on 08 April 2011.

It was only three years ago when the idea of a smoking ban on campus came up. It was put to a vote and shot down by the student body. Now we are faced with another smoking ban. The difference between then and now? We don’t have a choice this time. Potter’s Administration included a “referendum” to this week’s election to either “approve” or “oppose” the smoking ban. What will happen if a majority opposes the smoking ban?

Absolutely nothing. The Administration said it won’t matter which way the students vote, according to SCSU’s own press release: “Regardless of student feedback, the (smoking) Task Force’s proposal will stay the same.”

The “referendum” only exists to give students the illusion of democracy. They will make decisions over our heads even though the students outnumber faculty 30:1, even though we pay thousands and go into debt for our education. And why is it that Potter and SCSU’s bureaucracy wants a smoking ban so badly as to disregard the will of the student body, many of whom smoke?

Money. SCSU will receive a grant from MNSCU if our campus becomes smoke-free. So Potter and the Administration care more about making money for the university than the quality of life for students.

How does a smoking ban affect the quality of life of students? Everyone who wishes to smoke must leave campus, even those who live in housing on campus. Smoking even on the streets that run through campus won’t be allowed. How will it be enforced? They will use Public Safety to distribute smoking fines to students.

So President Potter, who makes nearly $300,000 a year, wishes poor, stressed students who go into debt simply to get an education, to receive fines for smoking anywhere on SCSU’s 100-acre campus. It seems like Potter and the bureaucracy are more interested in generating revenue for the university than the financial well-being of the individual student. I’d be interested to know why Potter insists on layoffs and fines to students to make money, while taking such a fat paycheck home every month.

So Potter and the Administration are making a decision over the students’ heads in order to make more money, under the guise of a “referendum.”

“We’re over the age of 18, the land is public. If I got a smoking ticket I’d think it’s stupid and wouldn’t pay it. But at the same time it’s one of those things they can just charge to your tuition,” Nadine Swartz said to me. “I’ve paid them so much money to go here, and now they’re taking away my right to have a cigarette between classes.” The ban won’t just apply to cigarettes, but all forms of tobacco as well, including smokeless.

Dale Rystad, student body presidential candidate made the comment, “Much like a business, if they choose not to have smoking or tobacco use, it is your right not to use that facility.” But isn’t this University a public university? SCSU is not a business. It is funded publicly by the state. By Rystad’s logic, the Administration of SCSU can do anything it wants, and if someone doesn’t like it they can “not use that facility” even though it’s their own tax dollars paying for it!

Rystad also said, “Technically this campus owns the property, they can make the policy.” But again, isn’t the University publicly-funded and its land public property?

Rystad also claims only 8% of SCSU students smoke. I implore anyone to visit the Atwood mall area on a sunny Monday afternoon to understand that this “statistic” is highly inaccurate. Rystad is clearly out of touch with most students. Dale Rystad will run against Sam Ivey, who opposes a smoking ban, for student body president in the elections held this week.

People like Rystad claim they are promoting public health, but is a smoking ban going to cause people to quit smoking? No. These people just use “public health” as a forum for their intolerance of other people.

Share/Bookmark

This post was written by:

Jack Lofgren - who has written 11 posts on University Chronicle.

Literature student in the English department

Contact the author

Erin P

I find that the most insulting thing in this whole shebang (aside from pretending that our opinion counts) is that they have never simply said “look, we get money if you guys don’t smoke.” Instead the campaign against smoking has approached this in two ways — firstly, second hand smoke, and secondly, the health of their students.

The second-hand smoke argument makes no sense whatsoever if they include forms of smokeless tobacco — which as the name implies, don’t produce smoke and therefore don’t hurt bystanders. No snus smoker has ever offended anyone they weren’t putting their mouth directly on.

The health of the students arguments would work, except that apparently only 8% of students smoke. Even if the number is higher, it’s still nothing close to a majority of students. If we’re focusing on student health here, let’s start with the majority of students using other tactics, like maybe lowering gym membership prices or putting cheap, healthy food choices in Atwood instead of the current line up of fast food and grease, or even — and I know this is a reach — putting food in Garvey that is not either a form of fat or a form of starch. It makes no sense to claim we’re trying to improve overall student health by targeting the minority of students who smoke. Yes, it’s unhealthy. We know that already. There are smoking cessation programs available and we are aware. We just believe there should be a choice.
Pingback: Student: Why St. Cloud’s smoking referendum is a sham | On Campus
Joe Sixpack

Sorry, but we’ve given you smokers a chance. You’re not supposed to smoke in certain places, you smokers continually do. There’s a list of over two dozen places that are designated smoking areas, but smokers continue to just smoke wherever the heck they want to. Today walking into my building, a young man was smoking right on the stairs 2 feet from the door. Some of us want to be able to walk into buildings without wading through a cloud of smoke.

You’ve been given plenty of opportunities to coexist peacefully yet you continue to ignore the rights of others to not have smoke in their face. Sorry, you can’t be trusted any more.
Benjamin Seghers

There are many factors that play into the ban. Yes, the University will receive money for making the decision. It is indeed unfortunate, as Erin points out, that this was not made transparent. There is also the fact that Joe pointed out, which is that smokers are not staying confined to the designated smoking areas, which have been there for years. The result, then, as it’s been pointed out, is that non-smokers are adversely affected. And I think that’s the main point (though perhaps not in the University’s eyes).

When non-smokers are affected by the decisions of smokers, it’s what’s called in economics an externality. Basically, when you blow smoke into the lungs of those who wish to not have smoke blown their lungs, those who have to be subjected to it are paying a certain price. We know the effects of second-hand smoke, and no one agrees that they’re positive. The problem is that the price the non-smoker pays is not reflected in the price the smoker pays. So it’s basically unfair that the non-smoker has to put up with smoker who is adversely affecting his health. And health isn’t the only factor either. There has a lot to do with aesthetics, pollution, image, and so on. But I think health is the biggest one.

Now, I don’t pretend this has anything to do with smokers’ health. This is probably the University’s lowest concern. There are real ways to show concern and actually help mitigate negative health activities. A smoking ban is not one of them. I really don’t care what a smoker does to his or her own body. It’s when the smoker begins to affect others who do not wish to be affected the the issue becomes one that needs to be addressed.
Anna Behrens

As a member of Student Government, I feel there are a few areas in I should correct Jack Lofgren.

1. SCSU does not receive funding from MNSCU for being a tobacco free campus. Period. I have been presented with the information and I am implore you to do the same.

2. The referendum is on the ballot so students are at least provided an option for an opinion. It was never meant to change the mind of President Potter. However, with this question, information can be provided to President Potter that says ___% of students oppose or ___% of students approve the proposed smoking policy. Student Government voted to allow this referendum to be placed on the ballot

3.There are multiple public universitys that ban smoking, including St. Cloud Technical College only a few miles away. Simply because it is a public institution does not mean it is free from restrictions. We cannot drink alcohol on campus even though many students are 21 or older. There have always been restrictions applied to public institutions.

4. The statistic of around 8% of smoking students is correct. As a student who has taken multiple courses on statistics and research methods, I can assure you “to visit the Atwood mall area on a sunny Monday afternoon” is far from a non-random representative sample of the SCSU student body. Perhaps the Atwood Mall on a cold, December afternoon would provide us a different sample. If you still do not believe the statistic, feel free to look it up at “www.stcloudstate.edu/scsusurvey”

5. Each presidential candidate has equal influence on whether a tobacco ban occurs on campus. Ultimately, it still is determined by President Potter. As president, the individual should represent what the majority of SCSU students desire. What happens if the majority of students prefers a tobacco free campus? Even if a presidential candidate opposes a smoking ban, it is in their duty to present the student body opinion.

I fully respect Jack Lofgren’s opinion, but before advising others to follow one’s own beliefs, facts and statistics should be checked.
Matt Snyder

Everyone thinks the smoking ban is pointless. Yes student government voted on it but the student government is just a small group that hardly represents the whole, and how many members of student government smoke cigarettes? Seems like a biased vote. If you really want to see how many people smoke cigarettes on campus I invite you to go to the Sherburne smoking area any night of the week around midnight. I’ve gone there everyday and haven’t seen less than 50 people out there.