Discriminating against smokers again

Case Western Reserve University, along with many other colleges, has created designated smoking areas (DSAs) around campus. The goal is to isolate non-smokers from second hand smoke, for various reasons. Such action is becoming more common around college campuses, especially at public colleges. The policy effectively corrals smokers into isolated areas separated from the more ideal areas, such as obscure pieces of grass on the outskirts of campus. Not only are smokers asked to move incontinently to university-designated areas, but there is also a shortage of designated smoking areas. There are no DSAs on the quad, and students are threatened by university security with citations if they smoke outside the DSAs. It seems that the only people to actually voice displeasure with those who smoke outside the DSA are university employees, not students. Rarely have I witnessed a student confront a peer with the request that the smoker move to a DSA or put out their cigarette. Rather, the common reaction is a look of disgust and a hurried walk to get away from the smoker.Discriminatory policies toward smokers are not new, and are becoming more common in a society that increasingly views smoking as socially unacceptable. This negative stigma cast on smokers may explain why there was little uproar when the House passed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, a bill that grants the FDA the authority to regulate the tobacco industry by controlling advertising and banning flavored cigarettes. Perhaps there would be more outrage if legislation affected a more socially acceptable industry, such as fast food, there would most likely be the typical cry of 'too much government intervention.' The argument for supporting the legislation includes preventing youth from smoking. But for some reason it is acceptable for alcohol companies to target young people in their advertisements, despite the known risks of alcohol consumption. In short, there is an acceptable presence of policy aimed at targeting tobacco companies and smokers, and these policies are not challenged to the same degree as other regulatory legislation because smoking is deemed to be a socially intolerable behavior.

Now the DSA may seem like a reasonable policy, ensuring that non-smokers do not have to inhale cigarette fumes, but it really just exhibits the hypocrisy of policymakers. Case currently allows campus vehicles to drive freely on and around campus. And it is not uncommon to see such vehicles parked around campus with the engines still on. Both university employees and students can be seen driving their vehicles onto walkways that are typically reserved for pedestrians, but rarely are these violators met with the same disgust as smokers are. Motor vehicles are the ultimate symbol of selfish pollution, not cigarettes. People drive a vehicle that pollutes the surrounding air and are completely unaffected by their own cars emission. Smokers' actions are limited to affecting themselves, with a brief inhalation of secondhand smoke being the extent of harm done to non-smokers. It baffles me how it is acceptable for Case vehicles to drive on campus without getting tickets when a smoker receives a written citation for smoking outside the DSA. The irony is when police cars drive toward a student to issue a citation, leaving the car parked and running.

The sad part is very few students seem to care enough about secondhand smoke to ask smokers to move to the DSA, which signifies to the smoker that most people are apathetic to secondhand smoke, or view it as a tolerable temporary inconvenience. The reason such a policy is accepted without much complaint is that smokers are consistently treated as second-class citizens when it comes to tobacco related policies, and few people are willing to defend smokers. If the campus is dedicated to clean air around campus, then they should prosecute drivers to the same degree that they prosecute smokers, if the aim of the DSA policy is to protect non-smokers from emissions that are considered harmful. However, if the goal of the DSA is not to isolate students from second hand smoke, and there is general acceptance of vehicle emissions, then it seems that the purpose of the policy is instead to inconvenience smokers in an attempt to discourage a behavior that is considered undesirable. Either way, there seems to be little reason for the continued presence of the DSA.